31
Ukrainian soldiers left emaciated on frontline from lack of food and water
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
31 points (97.0% liked)
World News
24601 readers
52 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The level of logistic collapse you need to get soldiers this emaciated is far beyond the failure of a single individual. This is absolutely evidence of the systemic collapse of the UA that every realist has been saying is inevitable for years.
Also, if anyone was paying attention, this is Kupiansk - does everyone remember the big propaganda push with Zelensky taking that selfie in front of the sign? Did it trail off to an embarrassed whisper like every single other of these propaganda pushes?
Is that the one where Russia posted photos, claiming they took over the city, and then Zelenski went there to clearly and undeniably demonstrate that it's not under Russian control?
I appreciate the effort but make sure you don't waste too much time on a .ml tankie.
Funny you should put it like that. Where is that sign in relation to the city center, especially the all-important bridge over the Oskil River?
What's funny about it?
You were claiming it was part of a big propaganda push. I pointed out that it was a response to Russian claims. Russia claimed control of the city. Zelensky took a picture in front of the city sign.
I don't know what you think propaganda is, how it works, and what you consider a "big push". But I feel you're miscategorizing, misinterpreting, and having wrong expectations. Ukraine still does plenty of politics and - if you want to call it that - propaganda. Focus and situations change. There's only so much they can do, and only so much that makes sense and is worth the effort invested.
That instance of taking and posting a picture was very successful publicity. It doesn't mean they won't continue to face challenges or that they don't know they will.
If you're trying to make a different point, you gotta be more specific instead of posing these open questions. It makes me waste time interpreting, formulating answers, and expanding context as well.
When I say the word propaganda I mean it in the technical sense "information crafted into a narrative and spread for a political purpose".
A YouTuber I follow called Willy OAM says that the winning side's propaganda will exaggerate and the losing side's will fabricate. I think this is a perfect example.
The Russians announced that they had taken Kupiansk. In retrospect this was premature (exaggeration). In response Zelensky claimed in the caption to his picture that Ukraine had retained full control over Kupiansk, while providing for proof a picture taken 3 km southwest of the western bridgehead and other key central areas of the city (fabrication). Even (honest) mappers that are pro-Ukrainian did not find this evidence compelling to support his claim, but of course the Western press uncritically reported it as fact and a great embarrassment to the Russians.
Now, months later (at the start of the spring offensive) the Russians are pushing out from the bridgehead into Western Kupiansk. Moreover, they have been taking huge swaths of territory southeast of Kupiansk on the east side of the Oskil (this is the region where the starved defenders from the article were/are). Are those same Western outlets coming forward to say say they were wrong about Kupiansk? Do you think that will ever happen? Or will it be like Pokrovsk where they were still pretending the city is in contention when the contact line is tens of kilometers to the northwest?
Russia has employed lying in propaganda in and out of the context of war since the beginning and before it. I don't see that as any meaningful measure. You have to look for the facts and indications beyond the propaganda without being distracted by the propaganda or trying to meta-analyze it. Both sides will try to make their spins, and try to exaggerate and paint to the maximum of their ability in their respective environments.
For Russia, smoke screening is part of its narratives and political defense. I haven't noticed such systematic lying beyond what I would expect in wartime propaganda from Ukraine.
Press landscape is its own share of issues and part of what makes propaganda so important, effective, and necessary.
Ukraine has losses, but, with its limited resources, Ukraine is also very successful in defending and in striking into Russia. And to retain support, they have to utilize propaganda/publicity, to stay in the public and international eye, and continue to receive support. And they're very effective in that too.
Such as?
How exactly would that work? Are you assuming that there is some objective truth that is somehow magically outside the realm of propaganda? How would we access this truth?
How about overstating Russian casualties by at least 6 to 1? How about celebrating and crowing about the disastrous counter-offensive in Kursk? What about completely ridiculous and insane air defense shoot down percentages they claim even while not having any air defense interceptors?
I completely agree that propaganda is an essential front in war. Do you actually believe that the media is in any way independent from that? Have you observed that Western outlets simply cite Ukrainian propaganda uncritically? (see: Russian casualties as a glaring example)
No, this is incorrect. When the war started, Ukraine massively outnumbered Russian forces on the field. (Roughly 800k versus 200k). Over the course of this war they have squandered every advantage by literally fighting like Nazis. By that I mean refusing to withdraw from positions being encircled and wave after wave of hopeless counter-attacks that are accelerating their force attrition. Even Sirski is forced to admit that the UA is shrinking, while the number of Russian forces in the field is growing.
Yet Russian oil exports continue to grow. Perhaps these attacks on Russian energy infrastructure are not as successful as the Western media would have you believe.
I certainly agree that Ukraine has been effective in promulgating their propaganda narratives in the western press. Of course they have a lot of help from Western intelligence
Yet they're still successfully defending and countering. Which was my point. So I don't see how that was incorrect.
Where do you source this from?
https://energyandcleanair.org/march-2026-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/
I wouldn't define success as losing an attrition war as the defender, personally
Re: oil exports, The latest report from the IEA is for March and it shows an increase in total volume alongside a doubling of revenue
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russia-s-oil-export-revenue-surged-in-march-iea-says/ar-AA20Rhef
I still don't see them losing. no idea where you get that from. Russia is on its last leg. Economy, citizen dissatisfaction, even Russian war propaganda bloggers voice significant concern about Russias state and losses.
Ukraine still holds their lines, and just secured their huge EU loan.
Meanwhile, Russia sells its gold reserve, has mass closure of companies, record deficit in the public and linked private sectors. And their central refinery 1500 km from the front is on fire. Their oil exports aren't gonna get any better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jCi3mOUXQ&t=42s
Like.... Do you really want to get into this?
The entire mainstream Western media is reporting the war in lockstep with what their handlers in the intelligence services tell them they can report. And of course, you will literally dismiss that out of hand because you think only the Russians have propaganda....
If you're willing to even consider the possibility that you have been lied to about this war for 12 years, maybe we could get somewhere. But if you're just going to call me a Russian bot or whatever let's just skip it