Apologies for the OT post, but I'm wondering if anyone else like me is
trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine. In general so far,
The Guardian live coverage pages seem pretty good, those of The
Independent occasionally covers interesting new angles but I have to
disable JavaScript to avoid various barriers, which means that I can't
see most of the pictures and have to keep refreshing the pages, while
BBC coverage is sketchy and lacking important detail. However, I have
one particular specific question I'd like help with ...

The UK MoD occasionally comes up with some rather startling tweets, for
example this is today's not very startling one ...

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1526787550949548034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1526787550949548034%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2Flive%2F2022%2Fmay%2F18%2Frussia-ukraine-war-latest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live%3FfilterKeyEvents%3Dfalsepage%3Dwith%3Ablock-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7

.... and/or The Guardian update covering it has a slightly shorter URL,
but still too long, and thereby you can avoid the necessity to enter the
Shitter JavaScript jail ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/18/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7#block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7

.... but there was one a couple of days ago - I can't find it now
without logging in to Shitter - which claimed that the Russians had
lost about a third of the military capacity initially committed to
Ukraine. One would hope that a claim coming from our own military is
robust, but I'd be a lot happier if I could judge the evidence
supporting it for myself, so my question is: has anyone managed to find
on a normal website outside of social media JavaScript jails, preferably
an official government website, the original MoD analysis and the data
supporting it? I have tried and failed. None of the links given in
Fuckbook or Shitter work in Pale Moon for someone not logged in, and a
search didn't find anything either.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Apologies for the OT post, but I'm wondering if anyone else like me is
> trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine. In general so far,
> The Guardian live coverage pages seem pretty good, those of The
> Independent occasionally covers interesting new angles but I have to
> disable JavaScript to avoid various barriers, which means that I can't
> see most of the pictures and have to keep refreshing the pages, while
> BBC coverage is sketchy and lacking important detail. However, I have
> one particular specific question I'd like help with ...
>
> The UK MoD occasionally comes up with some rather startling tweets, for
> example this is today's not very startling one ...
>
> https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1526787550949548034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1526787550949548034%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2Flive%2F2022%2Fmay%2F18%2Frussia-ukraine-war-latest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live%3FfilterKeyEvents%3Dfalsepage%3Dwith%3Ablock-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7
>
> ... and/or The Guardian update covering it has a slightly shorter URL,
> but still too long, and thereby you can avoid the necessity to enter the
> Shitter JavaScript jail ...
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/18/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7#block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7
>
> ... but there was one a couple of days ago - I can't find it now
> without logging in to Shitter - which claimed that the Russians had
> lost about a third of the military capacity initially committed to
> Ukraine. One would hope that a claim coming from our own military is
> robust, but I'd be a lot happier if I could judge the evidence
> supporting it for myself, so my question is: has anyone managed to find
> on a normal website outside of social media JavaScript jails, preferably
> an official government website, the original MoD analysis and the data
> supporting it? I have tried and failed. None of the links given in
> Fuckbook or Shitter work in Pale Moon for someone not logged in, and a
> search didn't find anything either.
>

The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.

Java Jive wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable* information
> about Ukraine.

The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...

<https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>

On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
>> information about Ukraine.
>
> The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
>
> <https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>

Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now. ISTR
there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes my
ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find it.

However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
substantiation of:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk

Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've arrived
at their conclusions.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2022 18:58, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for the OT post, but I'm wondering if anyone else like me is
>> trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine. In general so far,
>> The Guardian live coverage pages seem pretty good, those of The
>> Independent occasionally covers interesting new angles but I have to
>> disable JavaScript to avoid various barriers, which means that I can't
>> see most of the pictures and have to keep refreshing the pages, while
>> BBC coverage is sketchy and lacking important detail. However, I have
>> one particular specific question I'd like help with ...
>
> The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.

And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only
to the Daily Fail:

https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see substantiation of

By searching for distinctive phrases that every news outlet under the sun
attributes to MOD sources, it really does seem that the MOD or Defence
Intelligence doesn't have a press releases page hosted anywhere under mod.uk or
gov.uk, it really does just push stuff to twitter and facebook ... unbelievable
really.

On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
>>> information about Ukraine.
>>
>> The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
>>
>> <https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
>
> Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now.  ISTR
> there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes my
> ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find it.
>
> However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
> substantiation of:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
>
>
> Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've arrived
> at their conclusions.
>

I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis and
the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their conclusions".
At face value that includes what they've been told by which human
sources, and which of them they believe; plus what they've had from GCHQ
and others by way of intercepts. But you can't seriously expect that so
what please do you think they could release without risk?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
>
>And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only to
>the Daily Fail:
>
>https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/

That's an old report reporting on older news. The Daily Mail frequently
gets information first and it is easily double checked a day or so latter
on the BBC news website. News is only news while it is new.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

On 18/05/2022 18:58, Tweed wrote:
> The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.

You can get The Times and other newspapers online through many
libraries, there are several services that they use. The Times Digital
Archive is, as in the name, an archive of issues several years old.

It is not that many years ago when you look at newspapers from around
the world but their websites tend now to be subscription or pay to view
and if free they require registration then bombard you with cookies.

On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
>>>> information about Ukraine.
>>>
>>> The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
>>>
>>> <https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
>>
>> Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now.  ISTR
>> there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes my
>> ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find it.
>>
>> However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
>> substantiation of:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
>>
>> Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've
>> arrived at their conclusions.
>
> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis and
> the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their conclusions".
>  At face value that includes what they've been told by which human
> sources, and which of them they believe; plus what they've had from GCHQ
> and others by way of intercepts.  But you can't seriously expect that so
> what please do you think they could release without risk?

In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.

For an example, take the war crimes in Bucha: Of course there are the
Ukrainian reports, including very convincing photos, but, as the
Russians tried to claim, they *could* have been staged, were it not for
other independent lines of evidence that prove them to be genuine, such
as satellite images of the town taken while it was still occupied by the
Russians showing the same bodies in the same places. A third
independent line of evidence that war crimes in general are being
committed is that German intelligence services eavesdropping on Russian
troops overheard them actually discussing what they were doing,
including killings.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2022 21:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
>> substantiation of
>
> By searching for distinctive phrases that every news outlet under the
> sun attributes to MOD sources, it really does seem that the MOD or
> Defence Intelligence doesn't have a press releases page hosted anywhere
> under mod.uk or gov.uk, it really does just push stuff to twitter and
> facebook ... unbelievable really.

Yes, while pushing summaries of their claims to social media is only to
be expected these days, for the benefit of the more serious newspapers,
you'd expect them to have a press release page supporting their claims
with at least an outline of the evidence they're working from, wouldn't
you? But, however unbelievable, one doesn't seem to exist, and that's
unacceptable in my view.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

The one that is worth reading is the report in the Centre for Historical
Analysis and Conflict Research ARES and ATHENA May 2022 issue.

On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
>>>>> information about Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now.
>>> ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes
>>> my ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find
>>> it.
>>>
>>> However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to
>>> see substantiation of:
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
>>>
>>> Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've
>>> arrived at their conclusions.
>>
>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis and
>> the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
>> conclusions".   At face value that includes what they've been told by
>> which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what they've
>> had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts.  But you can't
>> seriously expect that so what please do you think they could release
>> without risk?
>
> In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
> the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
> eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.

I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their sources.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/05/2022 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>

[Quoting broken, I didn't say this, Tweed did:]

>>> The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
>>
>> And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only
>> to the Daily Fail:
>>
>> https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
>
> That's an old report reporting on older news.

Yes, because when I went to the IPSO website, I couldn't find the
equivalent 2021 report, but by all means see if you can do better, I'd
be delighted if someone else can succeed where I failed:

https://www.ipso.co.uk/

> The Daily Mail frequently
> gets information first and it is easily double checked a day or so
> latter on the BBC news website. News is only news while it is new.
There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2022 23:12, Robin wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
>>> and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
>>> conclusions".   At face value that includes what they've been told by
>>> which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
>>> they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts.  But you can't
>>> seriously expect that so what please do you think they could release
>>> without risk?
>>
>> In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
>> the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
>> eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.
>
> I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their sources.

Think: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We need to be assured that we can believe what we are being told.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2022 in message <t63r18$a5u$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 18/05/2022 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>
>[Quoting broken, I didn't say this, Tweed did:]
>
>>>>The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
>>>
>>>And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only to
>>>the Daily Fail:
>>>
>>>https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
>>
>>That's an old report reporting on older news.
>
>Yes, because when I went to the IPSO website, I couldn't find the
>equivalent 2021 report, but by all means see if you can do better, I'd be
>delighted if someone else can succeed where I failed:
>
>https://www.ipso.co.uk/
>
>>The Daily Mail frequently gets information first and it is easily double
>>checked a day or so latter on the BBC news website. News is only news
>>while it is new.
>There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.

But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when they are
quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any consequence.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

On 18/05/2022 23:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2022 in message <t63r18$a5u$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/2022 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> That's an old report reporting on older news.
>>
>> Yes, because when I went to the IPSO website, I couldn't find the
>> equivalent 2021 report, but by all means see if you can do better, I'd
>> be delighted if someone else can succeed where I failed:
>>
>> https://www.ipso.co.uk/
>>
>>> The Daily Mail frequently  gets information first and it is easily
>>> double checked a day or so  latter on the BBC news website. News is
>>> only news while it is new.
>> There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
>
> But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when they
> are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any consequence.

I suggest you reread the original link. The fact remains they have been
consistently over many years the most complained about British
newspaper, and there's a reason for that, because they are consistently
the most inaccurate.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:

> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis

Wouldn't you prefer to see actual intelligence hosted in text format somewhere
under

<https://gov.uk/mod/>

rather than a GIF file at

<https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525704460214878208>

whoopee it's got a blue tick, but how is anyone to trust that DefenceHQ really
is MOD? and who the fuck is hootsuite inc?

On 19/05/2022 in message <t63uo8$g97$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>>>The Daily Mail frequently  gets information first and it is easily
>>>>double checked a day or so  latter on the BBC news website. News is only
>>>>news while it is new.
>>>There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
>>
>>But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when they
>>are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any consequence.
>
>I suggest you reread the original link. The fact remains they have been
>consistently over many years the most complained about British newspaper,
>and there's a reason for that, because they are consistently the most
>inaccurate.

Usually for the reason I gave.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)

On 18/05/2022 23:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 23:12, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
>>>> and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
>>>> conclusions".   At face value that includes what they've been told
>>>> by which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
>>>> they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts.  But you
>>>> can't seriously expect that so what please do you think they could
>>>> release without risk?
>>>
>>> In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
>>> the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
>>> eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.
>>
>> I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their sources.
>
> Think: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
>
> We need to be assured that we can believe what we are being told.
>

No. You patently /want/ to be assured but I don't see you have any
/need/.

And I see no meaningful parallels with the infamous dodgy dossier and
WMD claims. First, no one is asking for decisions or support on the
basis of these briefings.

Second, they are the merest bits of froth skimmed from the top of the
briefings DI will be serving up to those who do take decisions.

Third, they are clearly propaganda - and IMO part of a very effective
propaganda campaign that the US and UK ran before the invasion (while
most EU States were in denial).

'“The extraordinary thing about this war is how we’ve dominated the
information space right from the beginning. We’re doing it to crowd out
any propaganda from the Russians,” said Jonathan Eyal, associate
director at RUSI, a London-based defense think tank. And compared with
2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, “it’s 180
degrees difference from how Putin ran rings around us.”'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/how-uk-intelligence-came-tweet-lowdown-war-ukraine/

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/05/2022 00:46, Andy Burns wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>
>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
>
> Wouldn't you prefer to see actual intelligence hosted in text format
> somewhere under
>
> <https://gov.uk/mod/>
>
> rather than a GIF file at
>
> <https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525704460214878208>

I had thought JJ was concerned with the /content/ rather than the
/medium/ of communication.

And if you read on below the gif in that link you will see the text is
there in a form you can copy and past, listen to in a screen reader or
whatever.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
> ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation,

Are you thinking of RUSI (Royal United Services Instition)?

On 19/05/2022 08:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 in message <t63uo8$g97$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>> The Daily Mail frequently  gets information first and it is easily
>>>>> double checked a day or so  latter on the BBC news website. News
>>>>> is  only news while it is new.
>>>> There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
>>>
>>> But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when
>>> they are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any
>>> consequence.
>>
>> I suggest you reread the original link.  The fact remains they have
>> been consistently over many years the most complained about British
>> newspaper, and there's a reason for that, because they are
>> consistently the most inaccurate.
>
> Usually for the reason I gave.

Usually because they are utterly irresponsible and don't bother to check
anything, especially if it fits their political agenda, hence, for
example, the fake graphs about the pandemic in Spain

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/05/2022 08:51, Robin wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 23:17, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 23:12, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
>>>>> and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
>>>>> conclusions".   At face value that includes what they've been told
>>>>> by which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
>>>>> they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts.  But you
>>>>> can't seriously expect that so what please do you think they could
>>>>> release without risk?
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their
>>>> sources, the number of them, and whether they are independent from
>>>> each other; eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have
>>>> been counted, etc.
>>>
>>> I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their
>>> sources.
>>
>> Think: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
>>
>> We need to be assured that we can believe what we are being told.
>>
>
> No.  You patently /want/ to be assured but I don't see you have any /need/.

I, and any other responsible citizen, have a need to be properly
informed about matters that concern us. Ultimately, we are paying for
whatever help Britain sends to Ukraine, and for the MoD's existence.
Therefore, we have the right to ensure that their public pronouncements
are soundly based.

> And I see no meaningful parallels with the infamous dodgy dossier and
> WMD claims.  > First, no one is asking for decisions or support on the
> basis of these briefings.

On the contrary, they inform not only our own government, but probably
others also.

> Second, they are the merest bits of froth skimmed from the top of the
> briefings DI will be serving up to those who do take decisions.

Yes, as above, so you have just contradicted yourself.

> Third, they are clearly propaganda - and IMO part of a very effective
> propaganda campaign that the US and UK ran before the invasion (while
> most EU States were in denial).

Yes, that's just the point, they are propaganda, which is why it is
reasonable to request that it be based, and be seen to be based, on
sound analysis.

> '“The extraordinary thing about this war is how we’ve dominated the
> information space right from the beginning. We’re doing it to crowd out
> any propaganda from the Russians,” said Jonathan Eyal, associate
> director at RUSI, a London-based defense think tank. And compared with
> 2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, “it’s 180
> degrees difference from how Putin ran rings around us.”'
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/how-uk-intelligence-came-tweet-lowdown-war-ukraine/

Yes, I had a look at some RUSI stuff the other day, but the above
doesn't help validate you case.

The bottom line is, we pay for it and it's being done in our name, and
therefore we have a right to assure ourselves of its authenticity.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/05/2022 08:57, Robin wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 00:46, Andy Burns wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
>>
>> Wouldn't you prefer to see actual intelligence hosted in text format
>> somewhere under
>>
>> <https://gov.uk/mod/>
>>
>> rather than a GIF file at
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525704460214878208>
>
> I had thought JJ was concerned with the /content/ rather than the
> /medium/ of communication.

I'm concerned with both, but most concerned about its veracity, and the
lack of any attempt to prove it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk