Ken Ukraine is badly losing the war and I'm kind of struggling to understand how you could get this so wrong. The Ukrainian incursion is a pointless sideshow that has failed in its basic strategic aim to pull Russian troops from their ongoing, highly effective offensive. This is the darkest things have been for Ukraine since the start of the war.
Ken didn’t write this one - see the note about him being on vacation. I was astounded as well at the incredibly ill-informed take on Ukraine. In no way shape or form is Russia “losing” - in fact it’s quite the opposite which is becoming more apparent every day.
Bill Arkin here: Appreciate your comment. The facts just don't back up what you're saying. We're presenting evidence of this daily at KlipNews (@klipnewsorg) on X, but overall, Russia has failed in its war objectives, and most important, Moscow is actively losing the support of the people, both because of the astounding military casualties and the state of the economy. Whether Ukraine can consolidate to "win" (which our military sources are increasingly saying) remains to be seen, but Russia no longer has an upperhand. Russian military incompetence and corruption has been clear since the beginning, and Russia's freedom of movement is on the decline.
" Russia has failed in its war objectives, and most important, Moscow is actively losing the support of the people"
No it hasn’t. One of the goals is to de-militarize Ukraine which is happening. And for crying out loud this war isn’t even 3 years old. Ukraine had 8 years to build up its weapons, army and defenses, but Russia is steadily moving forward and more so now that Ukraine defenses have been so destroyed.
Plus Russia’s military is bigger and better than before the war. A US general admitted that to congress.
I could have read this garbage on the NYT, but I didn’t expect to read it here.
Looking through the Twitter account, you seem to be trusting NATO and Ukraine. That's one side in the overall information war, but there is neutral reporting that can be assessed because the war is covered and mapped so well. Just pay attention to what they say, and then later when the truth is visible, you can see who's trying to be honest. Neither of your sources hold up well in that analysis.
Well for one thing one city after another in the Donbas has fallen to Russia and the latest is Ugledar which was one that had huge defenses built up in over 8 years. Which is why it’s taken Russia 3 years to capture many cities there. America started training the Ukraine military in 2014 after Obama’s coup during the Maidan uprising and they started training the neo Nazis.
It’s you who is so wrong in your assessment of what’s happening in Ukraine. If you’re reading Ukrainian Pravda then you are reading propaganda.
Time will tell who is right, but I guarantee that it will be Ukraine that sues for peace and not Russia. Unless NATO sends its troops in.
"Facts": failed in its war objectives? Russia continues to destroy Ukraine's military capabilities. Russia continues to advance, taking Ugledar earlier this week. Actively losing support of its people? What is the source of that, and how does it compare to other sources? State of the Russian economy: IMF is projecting greater growth in Russian economy than US, UK, Germany, others... What military sources say that Ukraine can consolidate to "win"? Remember the counter-offensive-- what did Western sources say about that compared to what actually happened?
Why do you dismiss people’s comments instead of opening a dialogue? You are ignoring the facts that anyone can look into and just insist you are right.
It’s giving me the impression that you are only here to advance the government’s talking points.
Either way it’s a bad look for you.
The least you can do is list your sources.
If Ken had written this I would have unsubscribed. But it’s a bad look for him.
The last "evidence of this daily at KlipNews" I see is a Ukrainian national reporting on the results of an EU-based opinion polling agency that purports to know the attitudes of Russian nationals. Prior to that, you report on the same Ukrainian state media statistic you use in the article about Russian casualties in September to back your "Russia continuing to lose in Ukraine" thesis. You'll excuse me if I find that your overall lack of skepticism about claims in Ukrainian and Western media about this war reflects poorly on your journalistic bonafides.
Maybe it was just an assessment about this week's events?
"It wasn’t a good week for Putin."
My impression was that Russia was still slowly advancing in eastern Ukraine.
This seemed to be a reasonable summation:
"The Russian offensive effort in eastern Ukraine that began in fall 2023 continues to produce gradual Russian tactical gains in specific sectors of the front, but operationally significant gains will likely continue to elude Russian forces.
Ukrainian forces are conducting an effective defense in depth along the frontline, inflicting significant losses upon Russian forces while slowly giving ground but preventing the Russian military from making more rapid gains on the battlefield."
This is the most accurate comment about the situation, I think. Both sides have made gains in certain areas & suffered losses in others. Overall, it's been devastating for both sides, especially for Ukraine, but the tide of war hasn't been all one way. It's been in flux. Throughout this year Russia has been slowly gaining territory in Ukraine, but Ukraine has done far better than most people thought, & would likely do even better with robust & timely assistance from the West & fewer restrictions on Ukraine on the usage of weapons. The eventual results will depend partly on the depth & breadth of support for Ukraine. And for Russia, for that matter, which is getting generous direct military assistance from Iran, North Korea & China, & indirectly from various other international sources.
Why would we take the Ukrainians at their word on how many Russian soldiers are dying? And isn't it curious that we can never get accurate numbers on Ukrainian casualties? Russia is still taking towns at a steady clip in the south, and the Ukrainian offensive has stalled and partially rolled back in the north.
There's also no evidence that Ukrainian soldiers on Russian soil is degrading Russian resolve overall, likely the opposite.
The 'bad week for Putin' is a wild claim. Russia is winning decisively in Ukraine and US/EU/Nato is losing. Fighting this week in RU has shown amazing in Ru strength in chasing out Ukr & even slightly extending RU territory. What is going on with the reporting here? Happy vacay, Ken, stay out of Berghain.
There’s an argument to be had that the proliferation of positive news for the Other Side (aka Russia) is so that the NatSec apparatus can back up their need for ever more funding.
There is also a lot of Russian propaganda that gets fed to the West whose Russian origin is not readily apparent to readers & listeners. So the news we receive about the war, is slanted one way or another depending on the source, & it becomes difficult to accurately parce out what's really happening there. This is why we see such radically opposing analyses of who's winning just in these comments.
nah there are good reports of troop movements showing overwhelming wipeouts for RU the last week or 2. kursk was a total failure & loss. there have been very few 'victories' for Ukr troops in the entire war and death count has been huge. There's a severe shortage of ammo, men and equipment.
There are some fact-less assertions in this substitute-teacher report. For example, "The countries seek annihilation." There is far more evidence for claiming this of one of these countries, but not the other. Here's another, "Israel has been assassinating Palestinian and terrorist leaders for decades" Assissinating, and leaders, are about the extent of the truth here. A one-sided presentation of the most common biases we get all the time in the MSM. We don't pay to get that here. Let's get Ken back, ASAP!
Bill Arkin here: Appreciate your distress Joy. One-sidedness is support of one over the other. This is analysis that says both Israel and Iran have unattainable strategies.
Unattainable motives from Iran is right… in the sense that their aim is to deter Israel and the US from reckless and escalating attacks on civilians in nearly half a dozen neighboring countries. Unfortunately I don’t think the west’s bloodthirst can be stopped.
"National Guard pulled together as many as 6,700 soldiers to respond. We wondered if this was a lot? After January 6, 26,000 National Guardsmen and women were deployed at the peak, that is, to protect Washington from the American people, January 6-May 23, 2021. And in Katrina, the number was around 50,000 troops. Perhaps the reason for the modest response: Guardsmen and women from Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin are all in the Middle East or on their way."
This tells you everything you need to know about the regime. Protection for themselves and their allies, crumbs for rural Appalachia. America last.
Keep up the great work, Ken! I wrote a post before the debate to explain and share the Vance dossier that you did so much to make available. As much as the exchange between Vance and Walz proved to be substantive and revealing, one of the most important facets of the debate was the suppression of information related to it by journalists across the political spectrum. https://open.substack.com/pub/shahidbuttar/p/tonights-debate-means-more-than-you
"The countries seek annihilation, and though Iran’s existential existence is not threatened, they are fighting for the impossible." Could you explain what you mean by this a little bit? Just slightly confused who "they" is.
Clearly this guy is extremely biased toward the Russians. I wouldn't trust anything he says, although I think he may be correct about Russia successfully taking over Vuhledar finally.
Editors for the editor: to, too, and two. lol. I would not sweat the small stuff, I just go back and clean up the record copy online for posterity. Newspapers do retractions. I don’t think it is necessary on Substack.
I like what you do Klippenstein, but it's sure funny how you criticize NYT for mindlessly parroting what's served up by the military talking heads, but I'm the very next breath do exactly the same thing regarding Ukraine. Very poor reasoning and lack of self reflection there. Also, it wasn't Putin who was struck in Syria, I'm pretty sure he's nowhere near the Middle East at the time.
I follow several DC defense oriented think tanks, some of the guys are Ukrainian and have visited the front lines for research and they all say the situation for Ukraine is not good at all. They also say that Russia is not in a position for a decisive end to the war but they are continuing to gain ground in Ukraine. Between Russia's ability to put much more manpower and artillery into the field of battle, I'm not sure what exactly would constitute a Ukrainian victory or where the idea is coming from that the Ukrainians are winning.
Ken Ukraine is badly losing the war and I'm kind of struggling to understand how you could get this so wrong. The Ukrainian incursion is a pointless sideshow that has failed in its basic strategic aim to pull Russian troops from their ongoing, highly effective offensive. This is the darkest things have been for Ukraine since the start of the war.
Ken didn’t write this one - see the note about him being on vacation. I was astounded as well at the incredibly ill-informed take on Ukraine. In no way shape or form is Russia “losing” - in fact it’s quite the opposite which is becoming more apparent every day.
Bill Arkin here: Appreciate your comment. The facts just don't back up what you're saying. We're presenting evidence of this daily at KlipNews (@klipnewsorg) on X, but overall, Russia has failed in its war objectives, and most important, Moscow is actively losing the support of the people, both because of the astounding military casualties and the state of the economy. Whether Ukraine can consolidate to "win" (which our military sources are increasingly saying) remains to be seen, but Russia no longer has an upperhand. Russian military incompetence and corruption has been clear since the beginning, and Russia's freedom of movement is on the decline.
Good grief.
" Russia has failed in its war objectives, and most important, Moscow is actively losing the support of the people"
No it hasn’t. One of the goals is to de-militarize Ukraine which is happening. And for crying out loud this war isn’t even 3 years old. Ukraine had 8 years to build up its weapons, army and defenses, but Russia is steadily moving forward and more so now that Ukraine defenses have been so destroyed.
Plus Russia’s military is bigger and better than before the war. A US general admitted that to congress.
I could have read this garbage on the NYT, but I didn’t expect to read it here.
Bill Arkin here: Thanks for your comments and for reading. Don't know what you're reading, but you're wrong in your assessment of the war.
Maybe you should look into what you're reading because it comes off as State Department propaganda at best, delusional at worse.
Looking through the Twitter account, you seem to be trusting NATO and Ukraine. That's one side in the overall information war, but there is neutral reporting that can be assessed because the war is covered and mapped so well. Just pay attention to what they say, and then later when the truth is visible, you can see who's trying to be honest. Neither of your sources hold up well in that analysis.
Read this and see if you can debunk what he says.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-10524-post-ugledar-landscape?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=149787072&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=pcevt&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Well for one thing one city after another in the Donbas has fallen to Russia and the latest is Ugledar which was one that had huge defenses built up in over 8 years. Which is why it’s taken Russia 3 years to capture many cities there. America started training the Ukraine military in 2014 after Obama’s coup during the Maidan uprising and they started training the neo Nazis.
It’s you who is so wrong in your assessment of what’s happening in Ukraine. If you’re reading Ukrainian Pravda then you are reading propaganda.
Time will tell who is right, but I guarantee that it will be Ukraine that sues for peace and not Russia. Unless NATO sends its troops in.
Let’s check back in a few months and compare notes.
"Facts": failed in its war objectives? Russia continues to destroy Ukraine's military capabilities. Russia continues to advance, taking Ugledar earlier this week. Actively losing support of its people? What is the source of that, and how does it compare to other sources? State of the Russian economy: IMF is projecting greater growth in Russian economy than US, UK, Germany, others... What military sources say that Ukraine can consolidate to "win"? Remember the counter-offensive-- what did Western sources say about that compared to what actually happened?
Bill Arkin here: Thanks for your comment. I suggest you follow us on KlipNews to get updates that are accurate about the war.
Why do you dismiss people’s comments instead of opening a dialogue? You are ignoring the facts that anyone can look into and just insist you are right.
It’s giving me the impression that you are only here to advance the government’s talking points.
Either way it’s a bad look for you.
The least you can do is list your sources.
If Ken had written this I would have unsubscribed. But it’s a bad look for him.
If he doesn’t address this I will.
The last "evidence of this daily at KlipNews" I see is a Ukrainian national reporting on the results of an EU-based opinion polling agency that purports to know the attitudes of Russian nationals. Prior to that, you report on the same Ukrainian state media statistic you use in the article about Russian casualties in September to back your "Russia continuing to lose in Ukraine" thesis. You'll excuse me if I find that your overall lack of skepticism about claims in Ukrainian and Western media about this war reflects poorly on your journalistic bonafides.
Bill Arkin here: Thanks for your comment. The analysis is not based on media reporting but an analysis of the war.
Maybe it was just an assessment about this week's events?
"It wasn’t a good week for Putin."
My impression was that Russia was still slowly advancing in eastern Ukraine.
This seemed to be a reasonable summation:
"The Russian offensive effort in eastern Ukraine that began in fall 2023 continues to produce gradual Russian tactical gains in specific sectors of the front, but operationally significant gains will likely continue to elude Russian forces.
Ukrainian forces are conducting an effective defense in depth along the frontline, inflicting significant losses upon Russian forces while slowly giving ground but preventing the Russian military from making more rapid gains on the battlefield."
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
This is the most accurate comment about the situation, I think. Both sides have made gains in certain areas & suffered losses in others. Overall, it's been devastating for both sides, especially for Ukraine, but the tide of war hasn't been all one way. It's been in flux. Throughout this year Russia has been slowly gaining territory in Ukraine, but Ukraine has done far better than most people thought, & would likely do even better with robust & timely assistance from the West & fewer restrictions on Ukraine on the usage of weapons. The eventual results will depend partly on the depth & breadth of support for Ukraine. And for Russia, for that matter, which is getting generous direct military assistance from Iran, North Korea & China, & indirectly from various other international sources.
Why would we take the Ukrainians at their word on how many Russian soldiers are dying? And isn't it curious that we can never get accurate numbers on Ukrainian casualties? Russia is still taking towns at a steady clip in the south, and the Ukrainian offensive has stalled and partially rolled back in the north.
There's also no evidence that Ukrainian soldiers on Russian soil is degrading Russian resolve overall, likely the opposite.
FT, hardly a pro-Russian source, had a feature the other day about how dire the situation is for Ukraine: https://www.ft.com/content/2bb20587-9680-40f0-ac2d-5e7312486c75
The 'bad week for Putin' is a wild claim. Russia is winning decisively in Ukraine and US/EU/Nato is losing. Fighting this week in RU has shown amazing in Ru strength in chasing out Ukr & even slightly extending RU territory. What is going on with the reporting here? Happy vacay, Ken, stay out of Berghain.
There’s an argument to be had that the proliferation of positive news for the Other Side (aka Russia) is so that the NatSec apparatus can back up their need for ever more funding.
There is also a lot of Russian propaganda that gets fed to the West whose Russian origin is not readily apparent to readers & listeners. So the news we receive about the war, is slanted one way or another depending on the source, & it becomes difficult to accurately parce out what's really happening there. This is why we see such radically opposing analyses of who's winning just in these comments.
nah there are good reports of troop movements showing overwhelming wipeouts for RU the last week or 2. kursk was a total failure & loss. there have been very few 'victories' for Ukr troops in the entire war and death count has been huge. There's a severe shortage of ammo, men and equipment.
There are some fact-less assertions in this substitute-teacher report. For example, "The countries seek annihilation." There is far more evidence for claiming this of one of these countries, but not the other. Here's another, "Israel has been assassinating Palestinian and terrorist leaders for decades" Assissinating, and leaders, are about the extent of the truth here. A one-sided presentation of the most common biases we get all the time in the MSM. We don't pay to get that here. Let's get Ken back, ASAP!
Bill Arkin here: Appreciate your distress Joy. One-sidedness is support of one over the other. This is analysis that says both Israel and Iran have unattainable strategies.
Unattainable motives from Iran is right… in the sense that their aim is to deter Israel and the US from reckless and escalating attacks on civilians in nearly half a dozen neighboring countries. Unfortunately I don’t think the west’s bloodthirst can be stopped.
And Russia is collapsing ??
Where to read more about that?
"National Guard pulled together as many as 6,700 soldiers to respond. We wondered if this was a lot? After January 6, 26,000 National Guardsmen and women were deployed at the peak, that is, to protect Washington from the American people, January 6-May 23, 2021. And in Katrina, the number was around 50,000 troops. Perhaps the reason for the modest response: Guardsmen and women from Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin are all in the Middle East or on their way."
This tells you everything you need to know about the regime. Protection for themselves and their allies, crumbs for rural Appalachia. America last.
I think there’s a typo in the Helene guard count, should it be 6700?
Corrected. Thanks!
Keep up the great work, Ken! I wrote a post before the debate to explain and share the Vance dossier that you did so much to make available. As much as the exchange between Vance and Walz proved to be substantive and revealing, one of the most important facets of the debate was the suppression of information related to it by journalists across the political spectrum. https://open.substack.com/pub/shahidbuttar/p/tonights-debate-means-more-than-you
"The countries seek annihilation, and though Iran’s existential existence is not threatened, they are fighting for the impossible." Could you explain what you mean by this a little bit? Just slightly confused who "they" is.
Thanks!
Yes, is it Iran or Israel fighting for the impossible (& is "the impossible" each other's annihilation?), or perhaps both?
Good summary of the state of the Ukraine war https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1842256358202114474?s=61
Bill Arkin here: Oh Lord! If one only pays attention to one overwraught pro-Russian source, no wonder.
Clearly this guy is extremely biased toward the Russians. I wouldn't trust anything he says, although I think he may be correct about Russia successfully taking over Vuhledar finally.
I disagree that Ukraine's position is so dire.
I also disagree that the presidential election is two months away.
Today I am disagreeable.
Bill Arkin here: Don't be disagreeable. Correction made.
Editors for the editor: to, too, and two. lol. I would not sweat the small stuff, I just go back and clean up the record copy online for posterity. Newspapers do retractions. I don’t think it is necessary on Substack.
Correction: The correction note has the wrong “too” in it.
"Not only is Russia continuing to lose in Ukraine..."
That sentence alone disqualifies this piece as a serious analysis, and the author as a serious person.
I like what you do Klippenstein, but it's sure funny how you criticize NYT for mindlessly parroting what's served up by the military talking heads, but I'm the very next breath do exactly the same thing regarding Ukraine. Very poor reasoning and lack of self reflection there. Also, it wasn't Putin who was struck in Syria, I'm pretty sure he's nowhere near the Middle East at the time.
I follow several DC defense oriented think tanks, some of the guys are Ukrainian and have visited the front lines for research and they all say the situation for Ukraine is not good at all. They also say that Russia is not in a position for a decisive end to the war but they are continuing to gain ground in Ukraine. Between Russia's ability to put much more manpower and artillery into the field of battle, I'm not sure what exactly would constitute a Ukrainian victory or where the idea is coming from that the Ukrainians are winning.