Update from Ukraine | Ukrainian Army Kicks Ruzzian forces from Avdiivka north flank

blitz128: "It’s fascinating to see how many people come here to a pro ukranian perspective thread and complain about Ukrainian propaganda.
So many that many times their posts outnumber the others, almost like they are coming here to get hits and clicks😎"

Anti-Ukers do seem to outnumber Ukraine defenders on Free Republic by roughly the same ratio as Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield, several to one.
And our anti-Ukers are no more observant of the niceties of civilized debate than are Russians on battlefields in Ukraine.
They are aggressive and brutal beyond reason; often seem drunk with vodka and don't care what incivilities they commit.

So it has always been a desperate battle.

blitz128: "As to Denys making money off this through YouTube, so what, don’t subscribe, like or visit
Personally I find his content pretty fair, he is hard on Ukrainians when he sees fault, reports what he knows about frontlines, hits and loses, Russian advances/loses."

Right and, as you point out, there are several others doing similar reports, though Davydov is arguably the most popular of them.
Why he should attract such vicious personal attacks from our anti-Ukers is inexplicable except as a function of their mind-sets, if not mental illnesses.

As a test of my own feelings, I've listened to a pro-Russian YouTuber reporting on the same data from a Russian perspective.
And while it's easy to see where he emphasizes, if not exaggerates, Russian successes and Ukrainian losses, I felt no urges to attack him personally or concoct ridiculous stories about him "living large" while other Russians are fighting and dying in "Meat Wave" assaults in Ukraine.

So I conclude that at least some of our anti-Ukers are sick in their hearts & minds.

blitz128: "Simply calling one side of the other propaganda (lies) is lazy and weak."

Agreed.
The question here is whether the word "propaganda" means anything objectively, or is it simply, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder?
I think "propaganda" does objectively mean: lies or distortions weaponized for political purposes.
In the Old Soviet Union, agit-prop was an official art form originating in their Department for Agitation and Propaganda.

Today, in re-Sovietizing Russia, media is controlled by Roskomnadzor -- The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (RKN), though I couldn't say exactly who is responsible for what.

And there are plenty of western "influencers" who repeat Russian propaganda points, some of them perhaps unknowingly.

blitz128: "Is Ukraine winning, I would say no, "

It's all in how you define "victory" and "defeat".
For Vlad the Invader, "victory" originally meant a quick and easy conquest of Ukraine. Now it means holding onto what Russia currently occupies.
For Ukraine, "victory" originally meant just surviving the Russian onslaught. Now it means regaining all lost territories.

For Americans, our big victory came in 1991, with the collapse of the Old Soviet Union and the end of Cold War I.
This led to expansions of the European Union and NATO into Eastern Europe, a process culminating in Finland and Sweden now joining NATO.
But today, with Russia recovering some of its old swagger and aggressiveness, Western interests have taken setbacks, as has the deterrence value of American military strength, especially after Biden's Afghanistan debacle.
And now, with Russia allied to CCP's China, plus Iran and North Korea, thus threatening the "world order" all around Russia, in the Middle East, the Western Pacific and beyond, we are seemingly into a new Cold War -- Cold War II.

blitz128: "Call that propaganda, but that is how I see it"

I define "propaganda" as lies or distortions weaponized for political purposes, and I don't see anything like that in your comments, FRiend.

Kazan: "If you believe anything coming from the Ukrainians or from the Biden regime about this war or anything, you're a moron."

I'd say your word "moron" describes people who swallow and repeat Russian propaganda as if it had some inherent value.

Kazan: "All the Ukrainian claims are debunked by obituaries in Russian newspapers, by Russian social media accounts and satellite imagery.
Ukraine has suffered losses at an 8-1 ratio if not more."

Sure, according to Russian propaganda.
I've seen no independent sources verifying such claims.

Neither Russians nor Ukrainians publish their own casualty numbers, though both estimate the other's numbers.
Independent sources (i.e., US, UK, UN, NATO, Mediazona) put Russia's losses at roughly the same as Ukrainian estimates -- 300,000 killed or wounded.
They put Ukrainian losses, including civilians at circa 200,000.

I would note that confirmed (by Ukraine) civilian deaths in Mariupol are said to be around 2,500 even though some survivors have claimed totals up to 100,000.
Russia's "Butcher of Mariupol" explained that civilian casualties were caused by Ukrainian forces using civilians as human shields.

Is that something you want to believe, Kazan?

bimboeruption: "Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Davydov was a commercial pilot[5] for SkyUp.[6]"

I see.
Oddly, when I google Denys Davydov, that Wiki page does not come up.
I couldn't find much of anything on him.

Now I see that some of what I suspected about Davydov is correct:

"He cited a lack of any prior military experience for not joining the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the beginning of the war,[9] but noted that if the Ukrainian Air Force was in need of pilots in the future he would join after military training.[1]
He would begin to support Ukraine instead as a citizen journalist, providing analysis of the war on his Telegram and YouTube channels.[3]"

Also, there's this about his personal life:

"Davydov was born in Crimea[4] in the city of Sevastopol,[14] where he was baptised at the ill|St. Nicholas Church, Sevastopol|lt=St. Nicholas Church|uk|Микільська церква (Севастополь).[14]
He also lived for a time in Cherkasy.[15]
He is married and has one daughter...[4]

...Donations collected by Davydov would also be split 50/50 between charities supporting Ukraine and money for his family.[1]"

So Davydov is a married family man, a Christian, meaning alleged descriptions of him living the "high life", prowling bars like a wealthy single guy, are simply a mocker's overactive and malicious imagination.

bimboeruption: "$400.000 a year is a salary for a First World pilot...not a Third World pilot."

Your numbers suggest a Ukraine pilot's salary of circa $21,422 per year, which seems low, even for a third world pilot.

bimboeruption: "To sum it up, Denys makes over $200,000 more per year shilling his propaganda on YouTube than he did as a Uke pilot."

Just a few reminders:

Davydov began making YouTube videos well before 2014, so piloting was never his sole source of income.
Gross income can be one thing, it's a meaningless number, while net income after expenses can be something quite different.
Regardless of gross numbers, we have no idea his net income.
To claim Davydov is "shilling his propaganda" you must first prove Davydov puts out information which is knowingly false.
I've seen no such proof.

UMCRevMom@aol.com: "This year, Ukrainian children ask St. Nick for one gift only - Victory and Peace.”

House Atreides: "Are you sure some aren’t asking St. Nick for another $100 BILLION from American taxpayer money?"

Victory and Peace will most likely take much more than just $108 billion.
Reconstruction of Ukraine alone could run $1 trillion, hopefully to be paid by reparations from Russia.

The US War on Terror is said to have cost $8 trillion over 20 years, or around $400 billion per year, and produced neither victory nor peace.

World War II cost the USA $288 billion in 1940 dollars which, relative to today's GDP, is circa $72 trillion.

So wars are expensive, but peace only comes through strength.

bimboeruption: "How do you know what Ukrainian children are asking for for Christmas?
Did you travel to Kiev and conduct interviews?"

Relax, FRiend, not to worry, you can depend on children of a certain age understanding that victory and peace are necessary for life in Ukraine.
Those below a certain age will simply want their daddies to come home, and not to need bomb shelters for safety.

Ukraine is a poor country, so their children's requests are small and basic.

Well a response like that can only be met with an intelligent and well thought out “you are a soros loving, globullhomo, racist nazi…” /s

Just thought I would get that out of the way lol.

Appreciate the thoughtful response, used to be that way.
Think the prime example of the difference between sources and how they are accepted/treated is between Denys and Macgregor.

Denys does an update, listed what he sees both good and bad, his coverage of early bakmut and his take is a good example. He went from supporting ukranian tactics, to criticizing, to supporting as the battle ebbed and flowed. On the other hand I cannot recall a single prediction that Macgregor has made(he presents himself well, has credentials to give him credibility…), please correct me if he has had predictions that have come true. The same claims of defeat and collapse happen seemingly daily, yet of the pro Russian/macgregor clan I have never seen any criticism of failed predictions and most importantly(at least to them) is any mention of how these appearances have financially benefited him.

Mom and others aggregate news and opinion sources which I appreciate, it is up to the consumer to verify validity of the information. Truth is always somewhere in between all the noise

Good example is the Z yacht story. Effectively disproved(dislike the term debunked) and yet the story still lives.

Personal biases and narratives are strong motivators for what one sees as factual or true and vice versa.

A CNN vs Fox viewer(I am neither), I imagine will have diametrically opposed views. A watcher of both Fox and CNN would probably be utterly confused lol.

That’s my “propaganda “ for the day😀

blitz128: "On the other hand I cannot recall a single prediction that Macgregor has made(he presents himself well, has credentials to give him credibility…), please correct me if he has had predictions that have come true."

I have listened to Macgregor on occasion, and he does produce a strong negative reaction in me.
So do other more conservative anti-Ukers, Tucker Carlson being the prime example.
Much as I like him otherwise, I can't listen to his anti-Uke nonsense.

Still, in no case have my strong feelings driven me to concoct vicious & unfair personal attacks against any of them.

As for whether any of them are being somehow compensated for their services to Russia, that is unknowable, however, when pro-Russians accuse Ukraine's defenders of being bribed, we might remember the old Rule of Russian Projection -- Old Soviet & Russian propagandists often accused their opponents of doing things Russians themselves were/are doing.

blitz128: "A CNN vs Fox viewer (I am neither), I imagine will have diametrically opposed views.
A watcher of both Fox and CNN would probably be utterly confused lol."

I remember watching the 9/11/2001 attacks on CNN and soon after I switched over to Fox News.
Today I'm having more & more problems with Fox, including the 2020 election, January 6, treatment of Donald Trump in general and some of their views on Ukraine.
So I watch less & less of it.

I get a lot of news from YouTube and, of course, from Free Republic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.