The Armed Forces of Ukraine were able to advance up to 1,400 metres on different parts of the Bakhmut front during the day, Serhii Cherevatyi, the spokesman for the eastern group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said.
I stated a generalization based on reading widely for over a year. There isn’t really one source or even a few, it’s from many of varying quality and biases, including the UA MoD, the RF MoD, US gov, independent journalists on the ground, interviews with civilians, interviews with soldiers, military analysts (usually German and Austrian), and reading between the lines when, e.g., von der Leyen makes an oopsie about casualty numbers.
I might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but where I to read your comment with the same critical eye as you observed op’s source with, you are just saying ‘just trust me, bro’.
What might be clear to you, due to all your reading, might not be as obvious to the regular reader. Here’s where it helps to link to a source, as that increases credulity.
This is great and all, but do you really think it’s feasible to spam a link wall with every response? I’ve seen people try it on reddit, it usually doesn’t work anyway.
I’m saying you’d need to pay me money for me to go collect all the sources on this I’ve read since the start of the invasion. Reading through this stuff is not a simole matter of pointing to a single source that says, “this is the exact trend and I’m Mr. Right”. Part of sourcing all of this would also require me to walk you through media criticism, which is exactly what you’re not doing right now by setting up this little dichotomy where you’re just going to believe whatever the UA Ministry of Defense has to say unless I bend over backwards for you.
I listed a few of the types of sources I use. The fact that you don’t seem curious about any of them sends me a pretty clear message about how much of my time I should spend on your requests.
I stated a generalization based on reading widely for over a year. There isn’t really one source or even a few, it’s from many of varying quality and biases, including the UA MoD, the RF MoD, US gov, independent journalists on the ground, interviews with civilians, interviews with soldiers, military analysts (usually German and Austrian), and reading between the lines when, e.g., von der Leyen makes an oopsie about casualty numbers.
I might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but where I to read your comment with the same critical eye as you observed op’s source with, you are just saying ‘just trust me, bro’.
What might be clear to you, due to all your reading, might not be as obvious to the regular reader. Here’s where it helps to link to a source, as that increases credulity.
This is great and all, but do you really think it’s feasible to spam a link wall with every response? I’ve seen people try it on reddit, it usually doesn’t work anyway.
For the record, I hold an opinion similar to @[email protected]
I’m saying you’d need to pay me money for me to go collect all the sources on this I’ve read since the start of the invasion. Reading through this stuff is not a simole matter of pointing to a single source that says, “this is the exact trend and I’m Mr. Right”. Part of sourcing all of this would also require me to walk you through media criticism, which is exactly what you’re not doing right now by setting up this little dichotomy where you’re just going to believe whatever the UA Ministry of Defense has to say unless I bend over backwards for you.
I listed a few of the types of sources I use. The fact that you don’t seem curious about any of them sends me a pretty clear message about how much of my time I should spend on your requests.