The VDV got massacred around Kyiv because they entered contested airspace and had to fight without support. Doesn't matter how great you are if your Helo/Aircraft get blown out of the sky by a SAM before you can disembark. Nor how good you are at fighting when the enemy has tanks and artillery on their side and you got small arms.
The VDV where supposed to capture Hostomel Airport and wait for followup forces to reach them. The Followup force got delayed and/or shot down and they had to fight UA mechanized units with heavy artillery support. Airports being mostly open fields with light structures aka tank country extraordinaire. Naturally they got their ass kicked. They might have been Crack Infantry, but the survivors sure aren't anymore.
The Marine Infantry had the advantage of sailing around Odessa for the first few weeks of the war and only being deployed after the Russian had their wakeup call. They also didn't do a beach landing because that would have been Hostomel 2.0. They deployed regularly.
So they where fresh troops with good equipment attacking known enemy positions without believing it was going to be a cakewalk. Probably had army fire support too. Maybe even some Air force strike missions before their attacks. Against Ukrainian forces that had been fighting non-stop since the war started. So of course they would do better.
my 0,02 cents anyways.
Yes, people are mistaking "The VDV are supposed to be a rapid reaction force" with "the VDV are for dissident suppression"
Dissident suppression would be one role they play, but not all the roles. They were supposed to be the elite of the Russian Armed Forces, but got thrown into a terrible position.
Also note that like the US Marines, the Russian Airborne are their own branch. I wonder if this fact created issues in communication and coordination (ie; inter-service rivalry).
Flight registered to "Rossiya - Special Flight Squadron" took off in Sochi and looks like it's landing in Belgrade. It's an Ilyushin Il-96 300. Wonder why they're in Serbian airspace.
edit: There are also an absurd number of stratotankers about.
I was poking at Flightradar24 earlier and there were six surveillance planes and drones wandering around Ukraine's borders, and that's before the refueling planes. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many (visible) eyes hanging around there at once before.
And much older one, which perfectly summed up my own feelings and guilt over how we did let Russia to fall so low https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/04/putin-s-last-stand
BTW, direct translation of article from Russian would've been "Putins final battle with reality" - I think it is more fitting. Still hope Russia decisively losses and West will keep ressing with sanctions, as strange as it sounds.
Earlier I wanted for all to end and get to how it was before as soon as possible, but I fear for the future - all new laws stand to poison Russia for generations to come, especially return of "patriotic education" lessons, "commissars\politruks" and insane censorship - Putin noticed demographics are against his regime and, in true Russian fashion of always choosing wrong solution, intends to "fix it" instead of reforming government and earning actual real devotion. Just why???
Not that this isn't some desperation play, its just a 110 year old ship that does its job well (well, from what I hear. Given the state of the Russian Armed Forces, I wouldn't be surprised if she was in a poor state as well). Originally made for the Imperial Russian Navy. She's seen a Communist Revolution, 2 World Wars, and the collapse of communism.
I'm going to feel sad when it eats a Harpoon.
+1
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
There's no reason to waste a missile on it. If I thought I was facing a competent foe, I'd also expect that maybe Russia was waving bait, hoping to get more intel on capabilities and weapon/targeting positions when it was attacked, but I'm not sure Russia has the brains or intel gathering to do that. And all it's doing is probably retrieving sensitive material or equipment, like code books or important transmission/decryption equipment. Things that might have already been acquired from the important ECM suite that got captured early in the war. So it literally might not be worth wasting a missile on.
The 110 year old is pretty irrelevant. If a ship's job is to mount powerful cranes and be a floating work/repair shop, age doesn't matter as much and upgrading is much easier than armor/guns/weapons suites. So long as the hull itself is sound, it will be just as good/bad as any other Russian support ship.
Not that this isn't some desperation play, its just a 110 year old ship that does its job well (well, from what I hear. Given the state of the Russian Armed Forces, I wouldn't be surprised if she was in a poor state as well). Originally made for the Imperial Russian Navy. She's seen a Communist Revolution, 2 World Wars, and the collapse of communism.
I'm going to feel sad when it eats a Harpoon.
I suspect they'll leave it be. This is a forensics trip more than anything else, and Ukraine has more important things to spend its larger missiles on.
+3
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
What are the odds it eats a mine
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Hm, how trustworthy is Financial Times? I just read a Russian article, citing it, that talked to people close to Putin. https://meduza.io/feature/2022/04/24/financial-times-putin-poteryal-interes-k-mirnomu-dogovoru-s-kievom-i-teper-hochet-zahvatit-kak-mozhno-bolshe-ukrainskoy-territorii
According to the article:
After repeated military failures, Putin was resigning himself to peace talks to end this
But sinking of Moskva enraged him, as now he can't "look as winner" no matter what terms he gets
New course is to just grab as much territory as he can, guess with intention to make a bigger scale frozen conflict
He is even more high on his own supply thrn we thought - commanders report him that "Russian army never shot at civilians" and he trulu beleives it and all the BS on tv, citing it even as he talks to inner circle, certainly explains him rewarding the regiment suspected of being responsible, but still...
wtf it popped up right after I posted that I want it to continue and end in such a way that Putins regime completely crashes no matter cost Russia gets to pay, because it has gone too far???
Link to Financial Times source https://www.ft.com/content/a16c4ecd-e835-4e71-a12d-c7bec9f34d7c
At no point did the peace talks ever come anywhere close to realistic. I'm sure the sinking did piss him off but I don't think this was ever going to end without one side being defeated on the field.
I can certainly believe Putin thought the negotiations would be successful, even as we saw Russian conditions not really move at all.
It lines up with claims I'm seeing that if Russia captures X or Y or Z they can declare victory and everything's great. As befits the attitude they've seen it completely disregards Ukrainian agency, and as Hannibal learned to his cost a war doesn't end when you decide it does. With that kind of mindset of course Putin would think he could get a peace deal that "locks in" his smash and grab.
+2
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yeah at every step along the way it's been
"We're ready to talk peace. How about if you do everything we say and then we pinky swear we'll stop shooting at you."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they are identical but written in Times New Roman this time."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they look a lot like the old demands but the paper is different to show we feel very seriously about this."
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
"We're ready to talk peace. How about if you do everything we say and then we pinky swear we'll stop shooting at you."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they are identical but written in Times New Roman this time."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they look a lot like the old demands but the paper is different to show we feel very seriously about this."
Fun fact - IP owner of Times New Roman banned its use in Russia because of war I actually had no idea you can do it with fonts
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Good so maybe France doesn't go right back to arming Russia.
"We're ready to talk peace. How about if you do everything we say and then we pinky swear we'll stop shooting at you."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they are identical but written in Times New Roman this time."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they look a lot like the old demands but the paper is different to show we feel very seriously about this."
Fun fact - IP owner of Times New Roman banned its use in Russia because of war I actually had no idea you can do it with fonts
This is amazing.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Some movement, what I can see on Twitter. RU forces tried to advance on Vremivka along the southern front line, they suffered losses and retreated. RU forces tried to advance on Mar'inka and Novomykhailivka with the help of Artillery and "Didn't have any luck." according to the Ukrainian army. But Russia did move into Zarichne, on the Seredovenestk front. Meanwhile, Ukraine liberated Bezruky, Slatyne and Prudyanka north of Kharkiv yesterday.
I think what matters is whether Ukraine can keep its attrition lower than Russia's, successfully retreating where they have to and defending where they have to.
I think the other critical factor is whether russia is going to keep throwing troops out piecemeal or actually have aa plan for moving as a coordinated force.
With peace talks, you need to also think of what terms Russia was going to offer.
Like maybe they were going to float "recognize Crimea is our and DPR and LPR are independent", but then Moskva sank and now they don't want that.
But would it matter if Ukraine was going to reject whatever "generous" offer Russia made?
Russia's terms for peace were effectively ending sovereign rule. Like you can dance around and call it whatever you want but that's what it boiled down to.
+32
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
They are not actually throwing out units piecemeal, they are sacrificing their vehicles and soldiers' lives to figure out Ukrainian artillery reaction times and general positions, and to keep Ukrainians guessing and off balance a bit.
They are not actually throwing out units piecemeal, they are sacrificing their vehicles and soldiers' lives to figure out Ukrainian artillery reaction times and general positions, and to keep Ukrainians guessing and off balance a bit.
That doesn't sound like a strategy that will address morale issues. Or that can be sustainable.
They are not actually throwing out units piecemeal, they are sacrificing their vehicles and soldiers' lives to figure out Ukrainian artillery reaction times and general positions, and to keep Ukrainians guessing and off balance a bit.
Lucky them!
"Hey, Sergei, we need you to advance unsupported to test what the Ukrainians can blow the hell out of. Off you go, chap."
They are not actually throwing out units piecemeal, they are sacrificing their vehicles and soldiers' lives to figure out Ukrainian artillery reaction times and general positions, and to keep Ukrainians guessing and off balance a bit.
So the Zapp Brannigan strategy.
I guess it's an improvement over no strategy at all.
I've seen a few posts including from Liveuamap saying Ukraine believes Russia is building up forces at Kherson for a push towards Kryvyi Rih. It would be one possible reason for that big leadership meeting they had (that got blown up).
Now, I'm not a general and I only vaguely know how to read maps, but this seems like a really bad idea to me. This is basically a smaller scale repeat of them driving on to Kyiv and leaving Sumy and other cities open on their flank. The entire western side of the approach is super vulnerable to what seems to be the fairly significant defense force that's been blowing up all their shit, and when they actually get to their destination, it's a city with a peacetime population of 634k - significantly bigger than Mariupol. Also, I have to wonder what sort of effect having 3 of your generals taken down the week before the offensive might have on your planning and execution skills.
All this on top of the fact that I still don't understand why they have forces north of Kherson at all. The logical thing to me seems like they should pull back with the river as a natural defense and sit tight, and then if they win in the Donbass, maybe thinking about making Kherson the next offensive. Trying to take their biggest target yet with what's effectively a sideshow of their invasion force seems really foolish.
It's not just Times New Roman. They also lost access to the entire Monotype library, which also includes Arial, Courier and Impact fonts. Also, since Microsoft suspended business, that means they've lost access to Comic Sans.
(technically they can use the fonts through licensed products, such as word processing software, but this prevents Russian devs from developing software using those fonts (and in many cases, Russian sanctions have blocked the sale of licensed products as well).
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+9
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
I am mostly surprised they aren't yet making a huge concerted push for Odessa.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
It's not just Times New Roman. They also lost access to the entire Monotype library, which also includes Arial, Courier and Impact fonts. Also, since Microsoft suspended business, that means they've lost access to Comic Sans.
(technically they can use the fonts through licensed products, such as word processing software, but this prevents Russian devs from developing software using those fonts (and in many cases, Russian sanctions have blocked the sale of licensed products as well).
Losing access to everything except Comic Sans seems like it would be a more suitable punishment. Perhaps too cruel, though.
+29
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
It's not just Times New Roman. They also lost access to the entire Monotype library, which also includes Arial, Courier and Impact fonts. Also, since Microsoft suspended business, that means they've lost access to Comic Sans.
(technically they can use the fonts through licensed products, such as word processing software, but this prevents Russian devs from developing software using those fonts (and in many cases, Russian sanctions have blocked the sale of licensed products as well).
Losing access to everything except Comic Sans seems like it would be a more suitable punishment. Perhaps too cruel, though.
yeah way to make their Powerpoints more readable guys
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Hm, how trustworthy is Financial Times? I just read a Russian article, citing it, that talked to people close to Putin. https://meduza.io/feature/2022/04/24/financial-times-putin-poteryal-interes-k-mirnomu-dogovoru-s-kievom-i-teper-hochet-zahvatit-kak-mozhno-bolshe-ukrainskoy-territorii
According to the article:
After repeated military failures, Putin was resigning himself to peace talks to end this
But sinking of Moskva enraged him, as now he can't "look as winner" no matter what terms he gets
New course is to just grab as much territory as he can, guess with intention to make a bigger scale frozen conflict
He is even more high on his own supply thrn we thought - commanders report him that "Russian army never shot at civilians" and he trulu beleives it and all the BS on tv, citing it even as he talks to inner circle, certainly explains him rewarding the regiment suspected of being responsible, but still...
wtf it popped up right after I posted that I want it to continue and end in such a way that Putins regime completely crashes no matter cost Russia gets to pay, because it has gone too far???
Link to Financial Times source https://www.ft.com/content/a16c4ecd-e835-4e71-a12d-c7bec9f34d7c
Not being very familiar with FT.com (Financial Times) reporting, here' is where I would look.
Looking at those can get you a general surface level understanding of a media source. In this case, they both show FT as generally low politicization and highly factual reporting.
Past that very basic level, I do NOT know how much FT has expertise in international reporting in general, or reporting about Putin's regime in particular. If they are inexperienced with that, they could be inadvertently using facts to reinforce a bullshit narrative that a more experienced reporter would know to avoid.
Additionally, I am unfamiliar with their editorial policies in general. It's quite easy for editorial decisions to really warp the public reception of a story, and it's something the US struggles with a lot. And the two "media ratings" organizations linked above aren't necessarily going to be able to quantify that very well, either.
Beyond that, looking at how concepts and language are broadly used in society is a factor in media analysis. For example, the "inflation" narrative currently being pushed in US corporate media, when a significant part of what's going on is actually price gouging or profiteering. But that's well beyond the scope of this thread.
Anyway, the simple takeaway is that at the micro level, FT is probably pretty accurate. If someone said something to one of their reporters, then the reporting is probably reproducing that quote accurately. Whether or not the information IN that quote is actually sound, that is somewhat less certain. They seem to be relatively okay by society's general standards.
I am mostly surprised they aren't yet making a huge concerted push for Odessa.
Haven't they been trying that in the South this whole time and failing?
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
They are not actually throwing out units piecemeal, they are sacrificing their vehicles and soldiers' lives to figure out Ukrainian artillery reaction times and general positions, and to keep Ukrainians guessing and off balance a bit.
You got a citation from someone suggesting that or is this you guessing?
It's not just Times New Roman. They also lost access to the entire Monotype library, which also includes Arial, Courier and Impact fonts. Also, since Microsoft suspended business, that means they've lost access to Comic Sans.
(technically they can use the fonts through licensed products, such as word processing software, but this prevents Russian devs from developing software using those fonts (and in many cases, Russian sanctions have blocked the sale of licensed products as well).
There's a reason they're passing a law allowing copyright violations. This probably isn't the reason, but hey, convenience.
I am mostly surprised they aren't yet making a huge concerted push for Odessa.
They tried for Odessa early in the war, but can't have a serious go at it without a land route, and they can't nail down a land route without Mykolaiv. They were knocking at Mykolaiv's door early on, but overextended themselves, got what sounded like a couple of regiments wiped out, and were chased most of the way back to Kherson, where they've been unable to make any forward movement ever since.
Their only other option there is a naval landing, but it would have to be an opposed one and Ukraine's fortified the entire coast around that area, to say nothing of Odessa itself. A beach landing would be suicide even by Russian army standards; their only other option is to break out from Kherson and take Mykolaiv, which seems at least as out of the question right now.
Heading for Odesa would be way too close to Mykolaiv and its defenses, I think they've given up on getting through there. But If they can't get through Mykolaiv there doesn't seem to be any reason to think they could get through any other city in the region, other than maybe a blind hope of "Maybe this one will welcome us as liberators!".
The daily ISW updates are suggesting Russia's been having fun with partisans in the rear in that general area too, which wouldn't help a push west at all.
I've seen a few posts including from Liveuamap saying Ukraine believes Russia is building up forces at Kherson for a push towards Kryvyi Rih. It would be one possible reason for that big leadership meeting they had (that got blown up).
Now, I'm not a general and I only vaguely know how to read maps, but this seems like a really bad idea to me. This is basically a smaller scale repeat of them driving on to Kyiv and leaving Sumy and other cities open on their flank. The entire western side of the approach is super vulnerable to what seems to be the fairly significant defense force that's been blowing up all their shit, and when they actually get to their destination, it's a city with a peacetime population of 634k - significantly bigger than Mariupol. Also, I have to wonder what sort of effect having 3 of your generals taken down the week before the offensive might have on your planning and execution skills.
All this on top of the fact that I still don't understand why they have forces north of Kherson at all. The logical thing to me seems like they should pull back with the river as a natural defense and sit tight, and then if they win in the Donbass, maybe thinking about making Kherson the next offensive. Trying to take their biggest target yet with what's effectively a sideshow of their invasion force seems really foolish.
Kherson has been their biggest success in this war so far; due to well placed bribes and traitors they took it mostly unharmed. It also sits north of the Dnipro, so if they want to keep it they also need to hold the ground around and north of it; the main bridge across the Dnipro isn't even really in Kherson, it's to the east in Antonivka. If they just gave up the land around around Kherson they'd find themselves surrounded and cutoff, basically dead meat. So, as long as the Russians want to hold on to their biggest success, and oh boy do they ever, they're gonna keep throwing men into that meat grinder around Kherson.
StarZapper on
0
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
I am mostly surprised they aren't yet making a huge concerted push for Odessa.
It doesn't appear possible for them to do so. Every time they start accumulating materiel in Kherson it gets shelled. They appear to be unable to approach Mykolaiv, so they need to bypass it, but they just don't seem to have anywhere near the force they need to do so. Their thrust in that direction was repelled and has been one of the areas where Ukraine was cleaning up overextended remnants.
Let's not speak of the tragicomedy that would ensue if they actually attempted the marine landing against Odessa directly.
Posts
Yes, people are mistaking "The VDV are supposed to be a rapid reaction force" with "the VDV are for dissident suppression"
Dissident suppression would be one role they play, but not all the roles. They were supposed to be the elite of the Russian Armed Forces, but got thrown into a terrible position.
Also note that like the US Marines, the Russian Airborne are their own branch. I wonder if this fact created issues in communication and coordination (ie; inter-service rivalry).
Bigger targets
I was poking at Flightradar24 earlier and there were six surveillance planes and drones wandering around Ukraine's borders, and that's before the refueling planes. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many (visible) eyes hanging around there at once before.
About war support
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/04/22/when-propaganda-goes-overboard
And much older one, which perfectly summed up my own feelings and guilt over how we did let Russia to fall so low
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/04/putin-s-last-stand
BTW, direct translation of article from Russian would've been "Putins final battle with reality" - I think it is more fitting. Still hope Russia decisively losses and West will keep ressing with sanctions, as strange as it sounds.
Earlier I wanted for all to end and get to how it was before as soon as possible, but I fear for the future - all new laws stand to poison Russia for generations to come, especially return of "patriotic education" lessons, "commissars\politruks" and insane censorship - Putin noticed demographics are against his regime and, in true Russian fashion of always choosing wrong solution, intends to "fix it" instead of reforming government and earning actual real devotion. Just why???
I'm going to feel sad when it eats a Harpoon.
The 110 year old is pretty irrelevant. If a ship's job is to mount powerful cranes and be a floating work/repair shop, age doesn't matter as much and upgrading is much easier than armor/guns/weapons suites. So long as the hull itself is sound, it will be just as good/bad as any other Russian support ship.
I suspect they'll leave it be. This is a forensics trip more than anything else, and Ukraine has more important things to spend its larger missiles on.
https://meduza.io/feature/2022/04/24/financial-times-putin-poteryal-interes-k-mirnomu-dogovoru-s-kievom-i-teper-hochet-zahvatit-kak-mozhno-bolshe-ukrainskoy-territorii
According to the article:
After repeated military failures, Putin was resigning himself to peace talks to end this
But sinking of Moskva enraged him, as now he can't "look as winner" no matter what terms he gets
New course is to just grab as much territory as he can, guess with intention to make a bigger scale frozen conflict
He is even more high on his own supply thrn we thought - commanders report him that "Russian army never shot at civilians" and he trulu beleives it and all the BS on tv, citing it even as he talks to inner circle, certainly explains him rewarding the regiment suspected of being responsible, but still...
wtf it popped up right after I posted that I want it to continue and end in such a way that Putins regime completely crashes no matter cost Russia gets to pay, because it has gone too far???
Link to Financial Times source
https://www.ft.com/content/a16c4ecd-e835-4e71-a12d-c7bec9f34d7c
It lines up with claims I'm seeing that if Russia captures X or Y or Z they can declare victory and everything's great. As befits the attitude they've seen it completely disregards Ukrainian agency, and as Hannibal learned to his cost a war doesn't end when you decide it does. With that kind of mindset of course Putin would think he could get a peace deal that "locks in" his smash and grab.
"We're ready to talk peace. How about if you do everything we say and then we pinky swear we'll stop shooting at you."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they are identical but written in Times New Roman this time."
or
"We're ready to talk peace. Here are our new demands, they look a lot like the old demands but the paper is different to show we feel very seriously about this."
Fun fact - IP owner of Times New Roman banned its use in Russia because of war
Like maybe they were going to float "recognize Crimea is our and DPR and LPR are independent", but then Moskva sank and now they don't want that.
But would it matter if Ukraine was going to reject whatever "generous" offer Russia made?
This is amazing.
I think the other critical factor is whether russia is going to keep throwing troops out piecemeal or actually have aa plan for moving as a coordinated force.
Russia's terms for peace were effectively ending sovereign rule. Like you can dance around and call it whatever you want but that's what it boiled down to.
That doesn't sound like a strategy that will address morale issues. Or that can be sustainable.
Lucky them!
"Hey, Sergei, we need you to advance unsupported to test what the Ukrainians can blow the hell out of. Off you go, chap."
So the Zapp Brannigan strategy.
I guess it's an improvement over no strategy at all.
Now, I'm not a general and I only vaguely know how to read maps, but this seems like a really bad idea to me. This is basically a smaller scale repeat of them driving on to Kyiv and leaving Sumy and other cities open on their flank. The entire western side of the approach is super vulnerable to what seems to be the fairly significant defense force that's been blowing up all their shit, and when they actually get to their destination, it's a city with a peacetime population of 634k - significantly bigger than Mariupol. Also, I have to wonder what sort of effect having 3 of your generals taken down the week before the offensive might have on your planning and execution skills.
All this on top of the fact that I still don't understand why they have forces north of Kherson at all. The logical thing to me seems like they should pull back with the river as a natural defense and sit tight, and then if they win in the Donbass, maybe thinking about making Kherson the next offensive. Trying to take their biggest target yet with what's effectively a sideshow of their invasion force seems really foolish.
(technically they can use the fonts through licensed products, such as word processing software, but this prevents Russian devs from developing software using those fonts (and in many cases, Russian sanctions have blocked the sale of licensed products as well).
- John Stuart Mill
Losing access to everything except Comic Sans seems like it would be a more suitable punishment. Perhaps too cruel, though.
yeah way to make their Powerpoints more readable guys
Not being very familiar with FT.com (Financial Times) reporting, here' is where I would look.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/financial-times/
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check)
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?utm_source=HomePage_IMBC_Video_Clip&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Link_and_Button
This one has a search tab on the left to pick out a media source.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media)
Looking at those can get you a general surface level understanding of a media source. In this case, they both show FT as generally low politicization and highly factual reporting.
Past that very basic level, I do NOT know how much FT has expertise in international reporting in general, or reporting about Putin's regime in particular. If they are inexperienced with that, they could be inadvertently using facts to reinforce a bullshit narrative that a more experienced reporter would know to avoid.
Additionally, I am unfamiliar with their editorial policies in general. It's quite easy for editorial decisions to really warp the public reception of a story, and it's something the US struggles with a lot. And the two "media ratings" organizations linked above aren't necessarily going to be able to quantify that very well, either.
Beyond that, looking at how concepts and language are broadly used in society is a factor in media analysis. For example, the "inflation" narrative currently being pushed in US corporate media, when a significant part of what's going on is actually price gouging or profiteering. But that's well beyond the scope of this thread.
Anyway, the simple takeaway is that at the micro level, FT is probably pretty accurate. If someone said something to one of their reporters, then the reporting is probably reproducing that quote accurately. Whether or not the information IN that quote is actually sound, that is somewhat less certain. They seem to be relatively okay by society's general standards.
Haven't they been trying that in the South this whole time and failing?
Aside from a couple potshots?
You got a citation from someone suggesting that or is this you guessing?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There's a reason they're passing a law allowing copyright violations. This probably isn't the reason, but hey, convenience.
They tried for Odessa early in the war, but can't have a serious go at it without a land route, and they can't nail down a land route without Mykolaiv. They were knocking at Mykolaiv's door early on, but overextended themselves, got what sounded like a couple of regiments wiped out, and were chased most of the way back to Kherson, where they've been unable to make any forward movement ever since.
Their only other option there is a naval landing, but it would have to be an opposed one and Ukraine's fortified the entire coast around that area, to say nothing of Odessa itself. A beach landing would be suicide even by Russian army standards; their only other option is to break out from Kherson and take Mykolaiv, which seems at least as out of the question right now.
AFAIK their entire southern offensive was headed for Odessa. It just stalled out.
Kherson has been their biggest success in this war so far; due to well placed bribes and traitors they took it mostly unharmed. It also sits north of the Dnipro, so if they want to keep it they also need to hold the ground around and north of it; the main bridge across the Dnipro isn't even really in Kherson, it's to the east in Antonivka. If they just gave up the land around around Kherson they'd find themselves surrounded and cutoff, basically dead meat. So, as long as the Russians want to hold on to their biggest success, and oh boy do they ever, they're gonna keep throwing men into that meat grinder around Kherson.
Let's not speak of the tragicomedy that would ensue if they actually attempted the marine landing against Odessa directly.