It's amazing how you believe that militaries and politicians operate without experts and there're experts on the social media/ tradmedia who came together analysed the situation, came to a definitive prediction about the outcome of a military operation but the western media surpassed those experts and as a result politicians and military engaged in a futile counterattack.

Fascinating mental model on how the world works.

That’s exactly what happened, yeah. And warfare/foreign policy is not the only issue they gaslight us on.

You're being very disrespectful in this conversation. I was GP has provided links and references when they made their comment, but they are certainly correct. The way the conflict is covered in US media makes it seem like Ukraine is wily superhero making good progress against the bumbling Russians. This does not reflect the current reality or future prospects in the conflict.

Apologies if I sounded disrespectful, I’m just fascinated that people can conceptualize the world in this way.

Pretty sure the actual world leading experts on Ukraine’s situation are the ones making battlefield decisions in Ukraine. Like the other commenter said, what a fascinating model of the world you’ve built here.

Holding a non-narrative driven view might be fascinating for some, I suppose.

You are literally constructing a narrative that western news media makes the decisions on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Yes, it is a major contributing factor. PR wins help with public support for funding. This situation/topic is not the only situation they intentionally manipulate public option on.

Lots of narrative here buddy

Lot of books, buddy. You might want to start with this one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Cons...

I'm pretty sure that "western news anchors produce an expected-to-fail counteroffensive in Ukraine" would even make Chomsky roll his eyes.

Your explanation is not even internally coherent. A successful counteroffensive is a PR win. An unsuccessful one is a PR loss, obviously.

His thoughts on this conflict are a simple Google search away.

Please link to any source in which he makes the argument you're making. I looked and couldn't find any.

Your argument is dismissible on its own merits and Chomsky believing it as well won't change that, but I am curious if he does.