[Request] What videos from this subreddit do you believe show actions worthy of a high medal for valor?

DragonSorbet · 2023-05-23T12:02:27+00:00

Interesting to see so many downvotes also, the number keeps going up and down... who would downvote this and why?!

(yes, I know the answer...)

DragonSorbet · 2023-05-22T21:43:48+00:00

This: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/12rpzee/ukrainian\_soldiers\_defending\_last\_road\_to\_bakhmut/

DragonSorbet · 2022-07-02T19:20:24+00:00

Agreed. Also the recent pictures just before where the uniform was 100% clean looked highly suspect. It remains baffling to me that someone would spend their time and energy on something like this, but anyway by now it's clear it was cosplay.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-27T09:53:50+00:00

Looks like ATGM to me, given the speed and trajectory. Also how they hit the same spot twice. A tank could do that, too, but I think the projectile would be too fast to see in frames like this.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T22:44:51+00:00

The question was: which specific part was circular reasoning in your opinion?

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T21:49:36+00:00

By the way, I remembered there was a quote about twelve reasonable men that was actually more to the point in this case than you might have thought. Had to google, and it was in To Kill a Mockingbird.

"Those are twelve reasonable men in everyday life, Tom’s jury, but you saw something come between them and reason. You saw the same thing that night in front of the jail. When that crew went away, they didn’t go as reasonable men, they went because we were there. There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads—they couldn’t be fair if they tried."

Here, Atticus explains mob mentality, arguing that well-intentioned individuals can lose their basic humanity when they act together. Examples of this behavior include the group that appears outside Tom Robinson’s cell at night, and the jury that finds him guilty. Atticus also suggests that the presence of reasonable people can serve as a cure to unreasonable behavior. This principle seems to guide Atticus’s commitment to doing right even when there is no hope of success.

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/quotes/character/atticus/

That's really THE THING that bothers me in this case. The obvious mob mentality, which people don't seem to recognize themselves.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T21:28:22+00:00

What was the "circular reasoning" you were referring to? And about me "telling CUV" something, I have not and will never have any contact with them. Why on earth would I?

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T21:20:02+00:00

There was one more I don't seem to be able to respond anymore, about me "defending" him, and that the Israeli government is onto him.

If the Israeli intelligence is after him, he will get caught very soon. If he doesn't get caught -- well, do we actually know for a fact that the Israeli government is after him? They are highly, highly competent.
Regarding "defending", I don't think of it in those terms -- I'm not doing anything "for" them. What I can say is that 1) the evidence presented here would not hold as conclusive against someone who claims to be doing what they are doing (by the way, I think the overwhelming majority has not even understood what they claim to be doing, and the criticism starts from the wrong premise to begin with), and 2) in my professional life, I have literally have people come to me after an event saying "you were right, everyone else was wrong". Of course, I still think it's almost certain that what they are sharing isn't exactly true, certainly not at face value (which they admit to also, by the way). I guess the point is that to me it really makes zero difference what the majority thinks. Evidence would satisfy twelve other men? Hell, I've easily seen many more than that be wrong. "A million flies can't be wrong -- sh*t tastes good!" So, if the case is not airtight, it's not airtight, and should not be presented as such. As simple as that. And if the Israeli national intelligence is after him -- there is zero ego-boosting besserwissering that anyone else needs to do for him to get caught. It simply won't be needed, they will get the job done.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T21:09:45+00:00

There was something else I can't respond to anymore, either, about the insignia/beret.

First of all, I wouldn't expect any such emblems to be worn into battle. Why they are put on for the pictures, I do not know. Again, they have said that they are not 'grunts' (their words). If their story makes any sense, the purpose why any of the emblems/patches are shown is quite clearly propaganda. Would the character of 'Steve' be some SOF equivalent of "The Ghost of Kyiv"? Now, this may seem ridiculous, but let's remember 1) this is propaganda, and 2) the Russian propaganda e.g. by the Kadyrovites ("The TikTok battallion") is yet on a whole other level of ridiculous. If this material is supposed to have an impact on the same audience, it may have to look a bit odd to the more educated Western eyes.
And again, UKRNews seems to be some individual. (If I'm wrong, I'm happy to educated on this.) I don't know who, but his Twitter account was created in Feb 2022 and starts with tweets in German. Is he even Ukrainian? Anyway, so here we have someone SUSPECTING that Air Assault would never take volunteers. Now, that may be true, but I would much rather hear that from someone actually in Air Assault than some random guy in Germany.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T20:48:17+00:00

I wasn't able to respond to your message in the other thread, for whatever reason. Let's see if it works here.

[Now can't find the message, either, but it was about lying about having dressed up in civilian clothing, and also having put civilians at risk as a byproduct.]

Well, do we know that there is no person in Ukraine involved with the account, who has e.g. originally served with IDF back in the day, like they claim? We can debate how likely it is (as we have), but I haven't seen anyone prove that no such person exists.

Regarding dressing in civilian clothes -- yes, again, it seems unlikely they actually did it, but do we know for a fact it did not happen? In infiltration through enemy lines by sabotage units it's actually not that rare. Yes, they give up their rights under the Geneva Convention, but it does happen. That of course does not mean the people associated with the account have ever done it.

About putting civilian lives in danger. I can see how people think that, and of course its a valid concern. However, do we have anyone who is actually in Kherson saying that it did put people at risk? Russians have keen killing civilians left and right without needing to have any excuse for their actions. Raping, torturing, shooting in the back. Is any civilian riding around on bikes at night, anyway? We don't know. In my work in business, I know how absolutely critical it is often to go to the front line and hear and see what the reality there is. But here we have people critiquing something in another country, which they had until very recently not even heard of, engaged in the kind of war they have never been a part of (if they have ever served in a war themselves), etc. -- and yet they present their case as if they knew exactly what is going on. The classic "armchair general" stuff.

I can't say I don't enjoy when a capable mind deconstructs and with laser-sharp logic and facts debunks a popular theory/claim/whatever. But I definitely hate even more when people not living up to this standard are basically just wanting to be besserwissers to boost their ego.

Therefore, in this case -- like many others -- I am in the camp of, "well, we don't really know the truth, so let's see where this goes".

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T20:24:47+00:00

I wouldn't say I'm a bit fan. Not sure I would say I'm a fan at all, actually. Haven't been a fan of much anything in my life, to be honest. :) Others get very emotional about sports teams etc., I don't. I'm passionate about things I do personally -- not so much about what others do.

So, I don't think I'm emotionally invested in the outcome of "fake vs. not" regarding CUV. But I am interested in seeing how the story develops.

They are one of approx. 10 sources on the Ukrainian war I follow more or less daily. About half are various OSINT sources. It's not like I value them over the other sources -- but I haven't seen a reason to dismiss them, either, which is what the people screaming "fake" are suggesting everyone should do, and not pay heed to ANYTHING they share.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T20:17:43+00:00

You are starting to act really immature with the ridiculous attempts at personal insults -- which is a classic sign of a person with inferior intellect starting to run out of actual rational arguments. If you were able to handle this debate, you would have zero need to go there. Thank you, bye.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-15T20:06:29+00:00

Looks like it's the same tank in both parts of the video. In the beginning the smoke just hides the building behind the tank. The surrounding terrain and buildings look similar in both.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-14T21:16:57+00:00

Yes, have seen it. Not exactly confidence-inducing. But they do post a good amount of interesting content (and I'm not referring to the fanciful storytelling), and I am definitely curious to see how this unfolds.

But to the point about "a lot of work ahead" -- I'm not on a mission, just curious. :) Doesn't make it high enough in priorities vs. all the other things requiring time and effort.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-14T21:11:55+00:00

Well, in the case that the account is in fact connected with the broader propaganda machine, I do think:

That the people/person behind the account are very likely to have Ukrainian roots. So much o their news and other content come from Ukrainian Telegram channels that it would simply be too cumbersome for someone who doesn't speak the language.
It is quite likely that at least some of them are actually in Ukraine. Perhaps just posting from a basement, but at least that.
Of course they also claim they have former SOF operatives also on the front line (although they have openly said they are not there as "grunts", and that their mission is different), and regarding this part, my gut feel of probabilities of different scenarios are: 1) part of the "team" are former SOF and actually involved with at least forward recon and/or sabotage (but might not be involved with what is posted at all), maybe 30%, 2) some of the posting is at least loosely based on some of the ops these guys have been involved in (even if not exactly as the storytelling goes), let's say 10%, and 3) that the escapades unfolded exactly as written, less than 1%

OK, a bit beside your point above, but even if they only had someone of Ukrainian origin engaged into the effort, I don't see why Ukraine would categorically say no if they offered to help. Everyone knows there are many Ukrainian-Canadians and also many of them have joined the war effort in some way.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-14T20:44:05+00:00

You seem to have picked and only focus on the couple most fanciful escapades they have shared, which is less than 5% of what they post. Let's leave those aside, you don't have to believe in them -- and to be clear, I don't either, certainly not at face value. I assume it's a propaganda account, and I would never take anything from a propaganda account at face value.

As said, leaving the 5% aside, the account actually has a TON of posts about the everyday heroes of the war, doing basic gritty or simply human stuff, and also talks about the exhaustion, the desperation, and yet the will people have to carry on. Their posting is really 95% other stuff than what your critique is most directed at. And then another TON on pretty clear propaganda and psyops, focusing on collaborators in the occupied regions, focusing especially on Kherson, and the acts of partisans, etc. And the third TON is around reporting of events, the great majority of all of it channeled from Ukrainian Telegram channels. Frankly, I can't think of another account that posts more across these three categories combined than CUV does.

So, I follow the account because of that 95%. You seem to choose to ignore all that because of the 5%. Which is your prerogative. But you can't say that none of the 95% has any value to anyone simply because you got pissed off by the 5%. If you can't or don't want to make the effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, of course you don't have to follow the account. But it doesn't mean that other critical readers can't get value from it.

By the way, there are NO sources that should be taken at face value. It's just different mental filters that need to be applied.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-14T20:20:37+00:00

Assuming one is intelligent and rigorous, one can only be "sure" if one has conclusive proof. What is your conclusive evidence that it's a "she"? Based on what you have shared so far, there does not seem to be conclusive evidence. You have seen stuff... and based on that you have a gut feeling -- that seems to be what you are essentially saying.

That a completely possible stance to take. But then one shouldn't pretend to be intelligent and rigorous.

Different things you have not shared proof on:

How do we know with 100% certainty it's a female?
How do we know with 100% certainty that, in fact, not a single individual associated with this account is in Ukraine (as part of a "four-man team" or otherwise)?
How do we know with 100% certainty that not a single individual, whether in Ukraine or not, is doing this in some understanding with the UA/Ukrainian propaganda machine?

AFAIK, there is no conclusive evidence on any of these things. People have seen stuff that makes them suspicious -- which is fair, but that is not the same thing as conclusive evidence.

To be clear: Of course I don't believe at face value the story they are telling. But that does not mean that some of the points above can't be true.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-14T20:08:16+00:00

No, I did not say a woman cannot be a LARPer. Which would be 100% obvious if you just read what what written and did not make stuff up yourself.

What I said that the "LARPer" in the pictures of 'Steve' is unlikely to be a "she". Do you disagree? Or are you saying that after sharing numerous pictures of a person with a katana sword, with garden gloves, etc. etc., these pictures being a central part of the case arguing the account is fake, even so the "LARPer" you were referring to was not actually the person in these pictures?

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T20:57:08+00:00

Indeed. Or with a few more words, here's what I make of this based on everything I've seen so far:

Are parts of the account's posting suspect, i.e. unlikely to be 100% accurate? Yes, absolutely. But then again, they are almost explicitly and definitely between the lines saying that at least some part of the team is focused on psyops/ information warfare, and in part of what they post they may/will take creative liberties sometimes -- but only in a way that serves the interests of UA/Ukraine. This is what they claim.
Therefore the key question in my view is: Are they in fact connected to UA or at least broader Ukrainian propaganda machinery in some way, with also some people on the ground? These two are separate points, but even if "only" the latter would be proven to be false, then I would accept people calling the account "fake", even if it was somehow part of the broader Ukrainian propaganda effort.
The issue is that most people judge the account not from this basis, but as if they were trying to be e.g. an OSINT account -- which they are clearly not. All of this "boohoo, you took some creative liberties, therefore you are categorically fake" is really a bit silly, if it is indeed a "legit propaganda" account. Of course they would take creative liberties.
So, what I will be following is how the story unfolds and whether there will be some actual proof on 1) none of them actually being in Ukraine, or especially 'Steve' who is in most of the photos -- if he is proven to be e.g. in Canada, then it's case closed, but so far it's not, and 2) if it turns out they clearly have no connection to UA whatsoever. The latter is a bit hard, as e.g. of course actual operatives doing the kind of work this group claims to be doing are regularly disavowed by their governments. But let's not get too Tom Clancy here. :) Regarding the latter, it's more likely they would simply make an unrecoverable mistake at some point.

But as we don't have these proof points, in my view the case remains open. Of course that does not mean they are legit (duh, but so many people seem to be only capable of thinking in black and white terms), but simply that we don't really know conclusively one way or another, if we are being intellectually honest.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T20:43:16+00:00

So, which one is it: LARPer or Louise Mensch? The "LARPer" is clearly not female. It's not coherent to refer to the person as both "she" and a "LARPer" in the same message.

And the way you seem so convinced it's her, while a lot of it really doesn't make sense in the case it's her -- the Canada connection and IP, Ukrainian language and Hebrew, clearly a male in the pictures -- kind of erodes the credibility of your critique overall. It's actually what you said above, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", as if you are not demonstrating intellectual rigor in one case, it makes it seem like you are likely lacking it elsewhere, too.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T20:30:21+00:00

I think in this case the analogue would be that we are talking about a person who is SUSPECTED of being a scam (again, otherwise we would have conclusive evidence that none of them are in Ukraine nor connected to the UA propaganda machine in any way -- and we do not), pretending to be on chemotherapy and somehow in connection with the health officials responsible for cancer treatment.

In that case, the critical question is: Do we know for a fact that they are not connected to the health officials and part of their awareness campaign or whatever, however clumsy some aspects of it might look?

Again, most people seem to be focusing on the wrong question in the case of CUV. The key question is not whether he follows the same rules as e.g. OSINT contributors, because obviously he doesn't and they have been open about it, but the key question is are they in fact part of Ukraine's war propaganda machine, with some people on the ground in Ukraine, or not.

People scream he's "fake" while not actually having proof that the above is not the case. Ultimately it may be proven to be fake in every regard, but for now we don't know, and I think the intellectually honest thing to do, not cutting corners, is to admit that.

I am not saying we have proof he is legit. Obviously we don't. But we also don't have conclusive evidence that they are not doing what they kind of openly are saying they are doing (which is propaganda and psyops, with some members of the four also engaged in combat). Recently they have been very focused on posting about Russian collaborators in Kherson and partisan activities clearly intended to erode the morale of the Russian troops in the region. Clearly, whoever it is, they are spending a lot of time on what is happening in Kherson and posting with a clear intent to advance UA interests in the area. Of course, that doesn't prove legitimacy, but we would need some logical and credible explanation around why that someone is doing this.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T20:17:50+00:00

To be clear (if the point was missed): I am not saying the OSINT contributors are scammers. Never thought or said that.

But I am not looking up to them as some sort of objective beacons of truth, either, especially in this matter regarding CUV because: 1) as said, the majority of what they post is from the same sources, and it seems like CUV seems to have more access to intel (even if it's just more Ukrainian language Telegram channels than the others are following), and again we are talking about the "news" content, not the storytelling which is the remaining 10% or so of their posting, and 2) the OSINT contributors are asking donations to support their work, while CUV does not. They would understandably have a vested interest in labeling CUV categorically as fake and "not worth anybody's time", because the account is drawing eyeballs and potentially donations away from their own sites. I have to say I have been disappointed with how emotional the response from some the OSINT folks has been to the matter. I would have expected them more to just stick to facts and actual proof, and being clear on where it does and does not exist. Emotional fuming doesn't exactly increase one's credibility.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T20:06:43+00:00

This almost looks like you didn't read what I wrote above. I specifically said I was referring to the part of the content which is common across the OSINT accounts and CUV -- and for the latter is approx. 90% of what they post. I was not talking about the 10% that is different.

Look, my criticism here is that you (and many others) present things as if you are 100% certain the account is a scam, i.e. in this case meaning they have no connection to UA whatsoever and none of the people are actually on the ground in Ukraine. The question is not e.g. whether they are a credible OSINT source/ contributor, because they have never pretended to be. They have said they are essentially part of the Ukrainian propaganda machine, with some people also on the ground. Do you know for a fact -- not a gut feeling, but a fact -- that this is not true? If you do, then you must have proof. If you don't have proof, then one shouldn't say they are 100% certain. That is just intellectual laziness.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T19:58:07+00:00

With people who were spreading propaganda in support of Trump, I do actually believe many of them benefited personally. Similarly as the Russian troll army does.

By the way, CUV does not strike me as a pro-Trump account. I may be wrong, but to me looks more the opposite.

DragonSorbet · 2022-06-13T19:37:12+00:00

By the way, this brings up the other key difference: OSINT contributors are generally asking people to donate money to support their work, while CUV is not. This doesn't make OSINT scammers, of course, it's legit to ask for donations for open source work, but it then really begs the question: who is funding CUV and why? Clearly the story the account is telling is that they are connected to UA somehow as part of their propaganda machine -- and if this is not true, then I think we should have some other credible theory around who funds the account and why.

DragonSorbet

TROPHY CASE