Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jac3kl4 wrote

Reply to comment by arronaxx88 in Ukraine war: Zelensky says situation in Bakhmut worsening by jacobhong

It's the new talking point to keep morale and support up by minimizing the importance of the loss. Notice how it's being repeated over and over now. Somehow it's simultaneously of little importance (despite many figures saying the contrary) and worth dumping loads and loads of soldiers. I think the other narrative to push is that it was meant to be used to "empty military resources from Russia", which is again clearly a point pushed as damage control.

14

Hypertension123456 t1_jac5hh9 wrote

Reddit is fascinating this way. I first noticed it when Sanders was running vs Hillary. As far as Reddit was concerned Hillary never won any state and had no real support.

Now the same with this war. As far as Reddit is concerned the Russian army is hapless. A collection of old men, criminals, and disheartened conscripts begging to go home. All fighting with worse equipment that the average Ukranian farmer.

Then they ignore any information that goes against that narrative. Articles like this one will barely hit the front page of worldnews, and fall off before the day is done. This can be a bubble as bad as any.

60

EndemicAlien t1_jac62vv wrote

That's a bit extreme. There is bias yes, but those who take time out of their day to comment are usually the most extreme ones. And upvoting good news and downvoting bad ones is both a coping behaviour as it is a political statement. No-one wants to upvote Russian successes because it undermines Ukrainian moral and international support. So we don't.

But I would wager that most here absolutely see the war for what it is - currently a stalemate.

20

Wildercard t1_jac819k wrote

Interesting world where comments under articles are more informative than articles.

7

NorthernerWuwu t1_jae4byw wrote

It's always a tricky balance.

The enemy must be weak for morale purposes but strong for the purpose of securing additional military aid. That aid must be seen as vital and of the highest quality but also as unimportant and not of any cost to those giving it.

2

daniel_22sss t1_jad9emq wrote

"A collection of old men, criminals, and disheartened conscripts begging to go home."

Nobody said anything like that. If anything, reddit news showed that russian soldiers will keep going to the slaughter no matter what and their human qualities are dubious at best.

And just because they are incompetent doesn't mean that they can't just throw human waves at ukranians over and over again - which is exactly what they are doing. But taking a small city (it used to have population of 40k-70k) after a YEAR of fighting and countless casualties is not a gigantic russian victory. Its only a single line of defence, and Ukraine has hundreds more, and soon western tanks will arrive. Russia taking Bakhmut is not a sign that they are "winning". Russia took Severodonetsk just a few months before Ukraine did a brilliant counter-offensive and liberated entire Kharkiv oblast and Kherson. Everyone, who is not a coping russian supporter, said ages ago, that Bakhmut no longer holds strategic value, that would be worth all these resources Russia is throwing at it.

Bakhmut served its role as a place, where ukranians could kill A LOT of russian soldiers, and now they can retreat from those ruins.

3

cromwest t1_jacrd58 wrote

Just like people never forgave Clinton, no one will forgive Russia if the narrative is wrong and Russia ends up winning. Could you imagine how angry the world would be with the Russian people? They will never be forgiven and people will accept any hostile act against them. Could you imagine IRA staff being hunted as war criminals decades from now? Doesn't seem far fetched of Russia wins.

1

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jacwqbo wrote

> the world

*Significant chunks of Europe, the US, and AUS/NZ. Not the world.

9

cromwest t1_jad066x wrote

Most other nations have to pretend to care about what those nations think.

−2

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jad5yy8 wrote

Looking down on the global south is not the wisest approach.

2

cromwest t1_jad6znv wrote

Western hegemony is the reality of the situation. Russia is threatening it right now and will be made an example of.

5

ssshield t1_jacz8ui wrote

Progressives wanted Bernie. Debbie Washerman Schulz wanted Hillary to be the first woman president and it to be Schulz's crowning career achievement placing her there, so she literally sabotaged Bernie's campaign from the inside as a total abuse of her position for her own hubris.

It wasn't some make believe dream that Bernie had the momentum and ability to win the Dem primary. If you went to both candidate's campaign events it was night and day the difference in the crowd.

1

ForgottenDreamshaper t1_jac7uwd wrote

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Any information about true state of events in Ukraine gets deleted anywhere, even if it has publicly available proofs for it. Every place, including the Reddit tries to keep up with the narrative, so in the end you consume as much propaganda as russians from their state media. Sadly, there are no platform for people from Ukraine to speek freely and adress major foreign audience, so you will never know all the truth.

−6

jeeepblack t1_jacjhq3 wrote

Seems like you are hoping for the "both sides" type of reporting. Nobody wants to hear Russian bullshit as the aggressor. Nobody has a desire to point out and applaud Russian success... because they are the aggressor.

Stop trying to guilt people into showing a soft spot for Russia. Seriously.

10

EroticPotato69 t1_jadccy7 wrote

Wanting to know and share the truth is not "showing a soft spot for Russia". Truth is the first casualty of war, and your attitude is facilitating that. People deserve to know the truth, even if it isn't what they may want to hear.

4

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jacoxf2 wrote

...and this is what propaganda consumption manifests as.

−6

NopetrainToNopeville t1_jaeq3n6 wrote

Are you honestly trying to imply that rooting against an imperialist regime attacking a sovereign nation is caused by propaganda?

1

ReverseCarry t1_jadiv5l wrote

The people claiming it is totally unimportant are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct to outsize the strategic importance in the opposite direction either. Because ironically enough, that is also a form of damage control.

Capturing Bakhmut is not akin to capturing Volnovakha. It will not lead to immediate control of Kramatorsk or Slovyansk. It’s best outcome besides opening up the highways is putting those towns in artillery range. Even with those highways, the Russians still have to pass through the smaller towns like Chasiv Yar along the way. It will not be a cakewalk just to get to Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, much less actually take them. It’s better than not having those highways, but the total manpower lost, materiel spent, and political friction generated were not worth a foothold that small.

A victory in Bakhmut might bring home a symbolic win, but strategically its downright Pyrrhic at this point. The manpower and materiel (especially the artillery), would have both been put to better use to reinforce defenses for the upcoming Ukrainian offensives, or in reserve for the pushes in Kreminna.

4

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jae4pm3 wrote

Why would Ukraine, who is getting to the point of mobilizing old men, women and students invest so much manpower in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" if it weren't important?

Either they're strategically insanely bad, or it was worth throwing all that people in.

2

shockage t1_jaegnw6 wrote

Because it:

  • buys time
  • causes attrition to both sides, but that attrition has a bigger effect on Russians long term due to logistics, domestic politics, and morale.

The MO prior to the counter offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson was to just bleed the Russians dry and survive long enough to exhaust the Russian ambitions for Kiev and the whole country.

3