Ukraine (17 Viewers)

Curious to see who you deem reliable if AP is not. Reuters? WSJ? BBC? Al Jazeera? I’m not surprised NPR picked it up. Contrary to far right accusations, they seek opposing counter positions and actually won’t post articles if they are one-sided. And I guess that can be considered irresponsible journalism as some true news is one-sided.

I would like to know your trusted sources. I’ve limited mine to the top tier of the attached diagram. Some quibbling can be had about the placement of some, but I find it to be a decent guide for me to steer clear of biased reporting.
You're going to be so shocked by this, probably scandalized.

:LOL:

In so far as the general journalism complaint I was voicing above, I think AP, Reuters, WSJ, BBC, even Al Jazeera are fine just so long as a Chinese editor has cleaned their articles.

What I'm saying insofar as "Chinese editor" is that the raft of English Language papers from China all have one thing in common, even the, especially the Chinese government papers, their editors remove every hint of speculation, categorization, and that bit about creating an illusion that opinion is news. In the last case they clean up articles like those by ignoring the entire article, they simply don't touch them. If they did touch them there'd only be an incomplete sentence left, even the title would have to go.

Those editors are my hero's they are ruthless.

What interests me in their papers are their World sections. Most of the articles in their World sections are edited and as thus are rephrased articles from our major papers. They attribute the source, and scrap out the manure which pads so many of our mainstream paper's articles so I don't have to do that myself. A long article from here will often be paired down to size during those edits, a bare paragraph, or two, or three.

Those hero's are very helpful in a time saving way.

Here's an example of a good English language paper which happens to be an organ of the Communist state. This paper is filled with propaganda, but you will find most of that propaganda in their China, Business, Lifestyle, and Opinion sections. In that World section I pay attention to who wrote it. If they wrote it I use a ten foot pole to touch it, or I avoid touching it at all. But if it's a paraphrased repair of one of the articles our media printed I find I can trust them to have edited out what I would have edited out.:


Use that link and pot around in that section a bit randomly sampling some of their edited, essentially paraphrased and paired down versions of our news. They will be examples of very clean newspaper copy. Like what used to be what AP and Reuters would put on their wire for newspapers everywhere to pick up and print in local papers across America.

I also like what Rudaw from Kurdistan does editorially:


I used to like the Daily Zamen from Turkey a lot, but that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shut it down during a purge. He sucks boulders.
 
This will be something else to watch.

As Ukraine prepares for southern Kherson offensive, if they are able to get some semblance of air support.

Page back I think I read they are getting a version of HARM missiles (anti radiation. Aka radar )
This has certainly been a different type of war. Neither side has experienced air superiority yet. Russia may have had it for a short, very short, time at the beginning, but for the most part this has been an artillery war. Tanks would have been the story if either side ruled the air. Remember Desert Storm? We maintained air superiority throughout and our tanks just rolled over everyone. Maybe the story here is anti-aircraft weaponry. I really thought that Russia had the edge in the air, but I guess the whole world had the wool pulled over their eyes.
 
This has certainly been a different type of war. Neither side has experienced air superiority yet. Russia may have had it for a short, very short, time at the beginning, but for the most part this has been an artillery war. Tanks would have been the story if either side ruled the air. Remember Desert Storm? We maintained air superiority throughout and our tanks just rolled over everyone. Maybe the story here is anti-aircraft weaponry. I really thought that Russia had the edge in the air, but I guess the whole world had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Yeah if Ukraine can somehow reclaim air support within a few km of front line, that changes entire game.

Allows infantry and mechanized artillery (re tanks/ bmps ) a sense of security (not having to watch both land and sky) and enhances offensive.

I don't know that the UAF will ever get full air superiority, but even 50% would change RF forces mindset. And from the multiple reports, a good portion struggle with the will and morale to keep going in the face of true aggression.

It's one thing when you have superiority with stand-off weapons. It's another when fight is now in front of you and you simply aren't trained for it.
 
This has certainly been a different type of war. Neither side has experienced air superiority yet. Russia may have had it for a short, very short, time at the beginning, but for the most part this has been an artillery war. Tanks would have been the story if either side ruled the air. Remember Desert Storm? We maintained air superiority throughout and our tanks just rolled over everyone. Maybe the story here is anti-aircraft weaponry. I really thought that Russia had the edge in the air, but I guess the whole world had the wool pulled over their eyes.
I'm imaging in WWI with jets instead of Bi-planes. From what I remember of my army training, Russian doctrine is to use artillery to obliterate and the air force is then used for close are support to make way for armor and infantry.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom