Ukraine's 'turned tide' doesn't comport 'with basic military reality' 87%

By Stavroula Pabst93%

7/28/2026, 9:05:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 1,935 faulty-reasoning hits from 870 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.4% and a BS Rank of 87% (3,982 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

Encouraged by Ukraine’s sustained advances in drone warfare, Western media is abuzz with the idea that Kyiv just might be able to defeat Russia after more than four years of bitter fighting. 
In May, TIME hailed Ukraine’s drone industry as giving Kyiv “the cards to win without U.S. help.” 
Last month, CNN lauded Ukrainian drone strikes near Moscow as “a likely turning point” in the war. 
Earlier this month, Defense One even framed the conflict as a settled matter with the headline “How Ukraine won the first great robot war.” 
But this isn't the first time the press has played up Ukraine's military capabilities, despite repeated setbacks on the battlefield. 
As experts warn RS, such coverage reinforces the idea that more military aid can still help Ukraine win back all of its territory, thus downplaying the need for a negotiated solution. 
​Overplaying Ukraine's hand 
As Daniel Davis, a military expert at Defense Priorities, tells RS, “western media narratives claiming Ukraine has 'turned the tide' do not survive contact with basic military reality.” 
“Tactical Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries and supply hubs  like the recent hits on [Russian retailer] Wildberries near Moscow and St. 
Petersburg  make for dramatic television,” Davis wrote to RS, citing recent Ukrainian drone attacks within Russia . 
“They do not disrupt Moscow's core ability to wage a long-term war of attrition.” 
Michael Desch, an international relations professor at the University of Notre Dame, tells RS that drones alone cannot earn Ukraine a military victory. 
“Best Ukraine can do [with drones] is slow the Russians down a bit,” he said. 
“There is no doubt that Ukraine has recently upped its medium- and deep-strike drone operations against Russia and has done some damage,” he shared. 
“The problem with the [mainstream media] coverage is that it ignores: a) Russia is doing the same [and] b) Russia is still making consistent gains on the ground.” 
To Desch’s point, Russian forces continue , albeit slowly, to push westward into Eastern Ukraine. 
Both Russia and Ukraine say they have captured villages at the war’s frontlines. 
More broadly, as Barry Posen, a political science professor at MIT, tells RS, “the press highlights anything that looks like positive news for Ukraine from the battlefield. 
And it tends to minimize Ukrainian setbacks.” 
Posen cited Ukraine’s 2024 Kursk offensive as an episode where the media overplayed Kyiv’s prospects. 
“It was clear that this [offensive] was a diversion of scarce Ukrainian combat power to a mission that could not produce important military results. 
And it ended very badly for Ukraine,” he said. 
The media similarly overhyped Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive in 2023, where Kyiv tried to retake Russian-held territory in southern and eastern Ukraine. 
“It turned into a horrendous sacrifice of soldiers on minefields and the drone-infested steppe,” Almut Rochowanski, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, said. 
“No gain to Ukraine at all, but enormous human and material resources were squandered.” 
Despite repeated military setbacks, many pro-Ukraine commentators “remain completely unfazed,” said Mark Episkopos, a research fellow in the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program. 
“Retired U.S. 
Army officer Ben Hodges predicted that the Russian army will collapse by March 2022, and again by the end of 2022, and that Crimea will be retaken in 2023,” Episkopos said. 
In fact, Hodges made a similar prediction just last week, telling The Sun that Ukraine was once again working to isolate Crimea. 
“There will be a significant political problem for Putin when Crimea is finally back under Ukraine's control,” Hodges said . 
“Things are moving in the right direction for Ukraine.” 
The Western press has also downplayed the fact that many Ukrainians no longer want to fight. 
“English-language reports about violent resistance to conscription [in Ukraine] are dwarfed by stories claiming Russia is faltering,” writer Branko Marcetic previously observed in RS . 
“Some Ukrainian-language reports about the country’s recruitment and demographic crises are simply never translated to English.” 
But rosy coverage of Ukraine’s wartime prospects helps Western politicians make the case for more military aid, prolonging the conflict. 
“The discourse around this war is saturated with the delusion that victory is right around the corner if the West simply does a little more,” Episkopos told RS. 
“As if one or two fresh aid tranches and sanctions packages will accomplish what $150 billion in military aid [to Ukraine] and the world's most ambitious sanctions regime with over 25,000 restrictions [against Russia] could not,” he said, citing previous efforts to assist Ukraine. 
“Most Western leaders…stand to lose politically from [abandoning the Ukrainian war effort],” he stressed. 
“Therefore, the only course left is to double down on the alternative information space they've created for themselves regardless of how far removed it is from the realities of this war.” 
But observers say that doubling down, rather than pursuing diplomacy, has real costs for Ukrainians on the ground. 
 By overstating Kyiv’s position, the Western media masks a grim reality: there is no viable military path to a Ukrainian victory,” Davis said. 
“Continuing to arrogantly pursue one anyway only prolongs the destruction and casualties pointlessly suffered by Kyiv.” 
“Ukraine will either have to negotiate the best peace terms available or face complete military defeat,” Davis warned. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.9%Stavroula Pabst: 14.2%Responsible Statecraft: 7.5%Confirmation Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Stavroula Pabst: 5.1%Responsible Statecraft: 2.0%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.1%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.3%Stavroula Pabst: 3.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Hindsight Bias6.3%This article: 9.8%Stavroula Pabst: 6.2%Responsible Statecraft: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias9.8%This article: 3.8%Stavroula Pabst: 6.0%Responsible Statecraft: 6.2%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 3.6%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 1.7%Stavroula Pabst: 0.8%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 5.1%Stavroula Pabst: 3.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect5.1%This article: 3.3%Stavroula Pabst: 5.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.3%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 12.1%Stavroula Pabst: 3.6%Responsible Statecraft: 2.8%Pessimism Bias12.1%This article: 32.4%Stavroula Pabst: 12.8%Responsible Statecraft: 6.9%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 1.6%Stavroula Pabst: 0.6%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 1.6%Stavroula Pabst: 0.7%Responsible Statecraft: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error1.6%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.2%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.2%Responsible Statecraft: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Stavroula Pabst: 2.7%Responsible Statecraft: 0.9%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.5%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.2%Stavroula Pabst: 5.0%Responsible Statecraft: 2.8%Appeal to Authority12.2%This article: 14.3%Stavroula Pabst: 3.7%Responsible Statecraft: 2.6%False Dilemma14.3%This article: 1.8%Stavroula Pabst: 0.3%Responsible Statecraft: 2.2%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.9%Stavroula Pabst: 10.9%Responsible Statecraft: 5.8%Hasty Generalization24.9%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.8%Stavroula Pabst: 1.6%Responsible Statecraft: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 6.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.3%Responsible Statecraft: 1.0%Begging the Question6.0%This article: 11.3%Stavroula Pabst: 3.1%Responsible Statecraft: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 2.5%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.5%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.7%Stavroula Pabst: 2.5%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.3%Stavroula Pabst: 1.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.3%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 2.3%Responsible Statecraft: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.9%Stavroula Pabst: 3.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 6.9%Stavroula Pabst: 5.4%Responsible Statecraft: 8.4%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 5.9%Stavroula Pabst: 2.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.4%Indoctrination5.9%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 2.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.9%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

870 words analyzed.

Speakers

10speakers77%attributed speech200writer words
Selected voice

Mark Episkopos

100%flagged-word coverage
192 attributed words29% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination-25.5 ptsWriter: 25.5%Mark Episkopos: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.0 ptsWriter: 16.0%Mark Episkopos: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.