If you want to skip Business Insider here, the “think tank” they’re referring to is the Institute of War. All BI is doing is summarizing the July 7th ISW conflict analysis, which you can read directly from the “think tank” here: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-7-2023
To summarize what the report says, it seems like most of the Eastern Military District (EMD) is at the southern/eastern frontlines with elements from the southern md as well. This translates as a vacuum of support from rear lines that could be essential in the event that part of the line needs to do a tactical retreat.
The report also makes the common confirmation that Russia’s lines of defense are extensive and well prepared, and it will take a huge effort to pierce them, however if Ukraine is successful in doing so, lack of reinforcements could possibly make the line crumble.
How much of a reliable source is Business Insider as opposed to… say something like Newsweek? Do they publish hearsay and wishful thinking, or do they corroborate with sources?
They are just using the Institute for the Study of War as their source - and they are the main source used by most western media articles on the war in Ukraine. The ISW basically analyze all the available open source data (videos, Russian milbloggers, etc.) to compile daily reports and map of the front lines.
They’re quite good, I check in on them directly regularly. After a while you notice the news articles are just regurgitating their daily reports.
well “a think tank says” is your answer.
But, but, it was said by a think tank.
Well shit… that element kind of went over my head.
Kind of? I’d say completely.But still… Business Insider: ok or iffy, in general?
“But still… Business Insider: ok or iffy, in general”.
It should be ok.Businesses Insider media bias
He’s just saying that Business Insider was using the think-tank info, and provided a direct source, so you can check their info directly. Then again, many media outlets use and quote other sources. Nothing strange imo.
Also, basically the nuance some ppl are giving in the comments is that in the end of the day a think-tank is giving an analysis from their lazy confi chairs, and are not in the frontline, and for that matter any analysis is not necessarily" the truth". But this think tank is of good repute, imo.
Add. reaction
In this case the course is the highly reliable IUW’s report that you could have read last night.
Is a think tank like the thought police?
