You aren’t building the Maginot line. Mine the main avenues of approach to likely and have artillery guns laid on them. Build strongpoints overlooking them, with mutual support and interlocking fields of fire. Make the enemy work and bleed to advance.
If you have a longer time, a few years for instance, canals are excellent as basis for defense lines against mechanised forces and can also help with irrigation.
See BRB Canal which protects Lahore from India.
The US has far-right trash. Russia has far-right trash. It’s a real phenomenon, but it is not a real issue in the context of Russian national security.
It’s irresponsible to amplify this kind of message, even as speculative devil’s advocacy.
There will be no cites. Twitter and Reddit are alight with the fever dreams of people who seem really excited about seeing a Chinese hand in the current crisis. Though China, like the US, is unquestionably a global power with a finger in every pie, they’ve been clear that Ukraine is a regional conflict with no upside for them.
The information space is bonkers right now. A rule I’m following for myself is the more I want a news story to be true, the harder I look at it before hitting ‘forward’. I myself have already swallowed the bait on a few false stories, but glad to say I didn’t forward them.
What about it do you find implausible? I mean, that seems pretty standard stuff for the CCPs state-run media. That doesn’t mean this is real, though I think it was the Washington Post who broke this story so they probably didn’t make it up out of whole clothe, from a plausibility perspective, this seems exactly what they would do and say. Just curious what it is about it that makes you say it’s unlikely.
That’ll last for about fifteen minutes.
Great idea if the war is limited to the ground.
Less effective if your enemy can call in airstrikes.
I wouldn’t be surprised that Chinese state media sends out guidelines on how to cover a story. I would be highly doubtful, though, that they would give a reason for that guideline, and even less that the reason would include classified secrets.
Likewise, @iiandyiiii 's post giving the US government’s update on the state of the war is likely untrustworthy:
Personally, I didn’t object to either since the US government is on the same side as I am, and I’m fine to let their information war go unimpeded. But, realistically, you would need to try and find a disinterested party to get any real updates. Indian newspapers and Aljazeera are probably the best places to go, if you want the real status on anything.
But in terms of what you post, I’d say that it’s okay to quote one thing and believe another.
Especially since Putin has pretty much de-Russiafied Ukraine by peeling off Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk.
Not sure what would be classified or secret in there, except perhaps the part about China needing Russia down the road for help with Taiwan. I pretty much tuned that part out, as it seemed speculative, and since the Washington Post article is behind a paywall I only have other websites who are repeating it, not the actual story to go by.
As I said, this seems pretty standard stuff for China’s state-run media, and it’s not like they don’t have a history of this sort of telling the media what spin they require.
So far, the information coming out of the US government about the status of the invading forces as proven pretty reliable. Things change, but so far the strategy seems to be to publicize every move Russian forces make or are highly likely to make.
Ukraine has far-right trash with an officially-recognized military unit.
100% agreed.
Really hope you’re not referring to me here. Or even the author of that opinion piece - he’s pretty careful about his wording. Myself, I wasn’t amplifying shit. I was explaining in the face of speculation why Putin is using the specific rhetoric he is.
Being aware of facts is not apologism.
Because it sounds exactly like something that was repeated on Twitter from someone on Facebook and then regurgitated here. Or any other such line of doubt.
Do you actually have a credible source?
As I said, the article is originally from the Washington Post. Is that a credible source? No idea. But several other newsgroups have picked it up.
That was previous to the invasion. We’re now in a new period.
Actually, you didn’t mention the Washington Post in the initial post.
Any link?
What makes it more likely the Pentagon would lie now?
Yeah, I did…several times. But sure (it’s behind a paywall which I don’t have access to), here. You can also google it and get 2nd hand accounts of the story, but I don’t know how credible any of them are either. It’s not a Twitter/Facebook made up story though, afaict. ETA, here is one from Yahoo!news (again, no idea how credible). I’ll just quote the title:
I just read the Post article and it doesn’t really say that at all. One commentator said something like you posted, nothing from the Government of China. As to the Yahoo!News one, it does appear to be a mangled repetition of something carried by Tweat from a blogger.
Can you quote some of it? I don’t have access to the story. BTW, I never said the Chinese government…I said the CCPs state-run media. Sure, those are the same thing, but news media such as the Washington Post might not be making that distinction. I’m curious how mangled the stories I can actually see are.
I think this falls within fair use:
Local commentators stressed the balance their country has to strike. “Simply put, China has to back Russia up with emotional and moral support while refraining from treading on the toes of the United States and European Union,” Ming Jinwei, a popular commentator and senior editor at Xinhua News Agency wrote Tuesday in his WeChat blog.
It doesn’t hurt to be moderately pro-Russian in words, he added, because in the longer run, Beijing is trying to get Russian support on Taiwan. “In the future, China will also need Russia’s understanding and support when wrestling with America to solve the Taiwan issue once and for all,” he wrote.