Do you think, maybe, the outlet has a slight bias here? Would you happen to have any other article with corroborating information?
The article points towards an “analyst” on telegram, but he’s just posting numbers without any insight into methodology or where he gets them from beyond being told the numbers.
Of course it has a bias and deserves to be taken with a grain of NaCl. But it helps explain the increasing rates of successful Ukrainian deep strikes and the summer mid range strikes on the Russian logistics network in support of Operation Vivaldi and the isolation of the Crimean peninsula
As I wrote: I take issue with the fact there is nothing backing the numbers. What is the methodology for knowing the successful strikes? Another user said its just the numbers from the Ukrainian government, which seems incredibly naive.
Could you be more specific with the data you take issue with? The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has provided the destruction tally, which is good enough for our purposes here.
Do you think air defense technology is easily replaceable by a country that can barely produce 90nm chips (current is down to ~3nm)?
I am the first person to expect relatively good quality reporting/sources, but I don’t see any issues with the statements made in the article.
It’s not so much ‘trust’ as ‘acceptance’ that they are the best source available keeping realtime track of, and reporting, what they are doing. The MOD reports are understood to be the upper bound of what actually happened, not the gospel truth. Nobody will have even remotely accurate numbers until years after russia has withdrawn and the war is over, Fog of War being what it is.
Until then, saying “I don’t trust these numbers” is noise. We work within the limitations of what is available. As such, the trend of an increase in reported numbers is itself a noteworthy change and supports the articles message regardless of whether it is only 75 or actually 77.
i can see that. sure. fair. but knowing that we wont know real numbers puts a clamp if distrust on all of them, to me i suppose.
knowing now that the US lied about the gulf of tonkin, back then, doesnt help me trust what they say now. they also lied about the casualty numbers and operations. (in vietnam)
anyway i appreciate the actual reply. my rambling is irrelevant. thanks!
Do you think, maybe, the outlet has a slight bias here? Would you happen to have any other article with corroborating information?
The article points towards an “analyst” on telegram, but he’s just posting numbers without any insight into methodology or where he gets them from beyond being told the numbers.
Of course it has a bias and deserves to be taken with a grain of NaCl. But it helps explain the increasing rates of successful Ukrainian deep strikes and the summer mid range strikes on the Russian logistics network in support of Operation Vivaldi and the isolation of the Crimean peninsula
As I wrote: I take issue with the fact there is nothing backing the numbers. What is the methodology for knowing the successful strikes? Another user said its just the numbers from the Ukrainian government, which seems incredibly naive.
Everything has bias
Could you be more specific with the data you take issue with? The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has provided the destruction tally, which is good enough for our purposes here.
Do you think air defense technology is easily replaceable by a country that can barely produce 90nm chips (current is down to ~3nm)?
I am the first person to expect relatively good quality reporting/sources, but I don’t see any issues with the statements made in the article.
hot take: trusting a gov to provide war stats is silly. govs have got a documented history of fucking stats or downright lying.
It’s not so much ‘trust’ as ‘acceptance’ that they are the best source available keeping realtime track of, and reporting, what they are doing. The MOD reports are understood to be the upper bound of what actually happened, not the gospel truth. Nobody will have even remotely accurate numbers until years after russia has withdrawn and the war is over, Fog of War being what it is.
Until then, saying “I don’t trust these numbers” is noise. We work within the limitations of what is available. As such, the trend of an increase in reported numbers is itself a noteworthy change and supports the articles message regardless of whether it is only 75 or actually 77.
i can see that. sure. fair. but knowing that we wont know real numbers puts a clamp if distrust on all of them, to me i suppose.
knowing now that the US lied about the gulf of tonkin, back then, doesnt help me trust what they say now. they also lied about the casualty numbers and operations. (in vietnam)
anyway i appreciate the actual reply. my rambling is irrelevant. thanks!