Hacker News Reader

Comment by defly | Hacker News Reader

FYI: In November, an ISW Analyst Manipulated the Situation in Myrnohrad to Rig Map Bets https://militarnyi.com/en/news/in-november-an-isw-analyst-ma...

View on HN

(as reported by Quincy Institute, a thoroughly pro-Russian think tank)

(Ad-hominem is not a counter-example btw)

Nothing about GP's comment is ad-hominem; it's neutral, factual context. Unless you dispute the factual claims?

It's counterfactual. The think tank has nothing to do with Russia and official denounces the invasion and upholds Ukraine's territorial rights. They have simply written critically about the role NATO has played in making this conflict inevitable and the history of NATO sabotage of peace negotiations.

> The think tank has nothing to do with Russia and official denounces the invasion and upholds Ukraine's territorial rights.

GP did not claim it was associated with Russia or that it had made specific claims about the invasion.

> They have simply written critically about the role NATO has played in making this conflict inevitable and the history of NATO sabotage of peace negotiations.

That seems aligned with the original claims.

In their own words

> We categorically condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and support U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s self-defense.

How is that possibly aligned with GP's blatant lies?

Literally in the same piece:

It has been suggested that QI’s approach is insufficiently critical of Russia. A cursory search of our writings and our website shows this to be false.

I wonder why would anyone suggest that, and frequently enough they have to get out of their way to write a disclaimer?

> How is that possibly aligned with GP's blatant lies?

Mate it's 2026, your gaslighting doesn't work for a few years now.

ISW confirmed unauthorised edits were made, and fired a staffer over it. Not sure why you feel the need to comment this. Classic lowbrow dismissal

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4726248

Your link points to a 2012 discussion of "Why an Airline That Travelers Love Is Failing". Not super convincing.

It's a pg comment explaining "middlebrow dismissal."

Why not look at the primary source evidence yourself?

> It has come to ISW’s attention that an unauthorized and unapproved edit to the interactive map of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was made on the night of November 15-16 EST

https://understandingwar.org/newsroom/statement-on-isw-mappi...

https://polymarket.com/event/arch-will-russia-capture-myrnoh...

> Settled as: Proposal: Yes

> This market will resolve to “Yes” if, according to the ISW map, Russia captures the intersection between Vatutina Vulytsya and Puhachova Vulytsya located in Myrnohrad by November 15, 2025, at 11:59 PM ET.

The intersection station will be considered captured if any part of the intersection is shaded red on the ISW map (https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641...) by the resolution date. If the area is not shaded red by November 15, 2025, 11:59 PM ET, the market will resolve to “No”.

https://oracle.uma.xyz/settled?project=Polymarket&transactio...

And ISW is tied to Victoria Nuland.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely correct.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-war-isw/

They are being downvoted because Nuland is an utterly insignificant diplomat, but serves well as a dog whistle for people who subscribe to the belief that the Maidan revolution in Ukraine was really some Obama organized coup. This is a story peddled by the Russian government, which of course is where Yanukovych promptly fled after having protestors shot. At the same time Russia was busy staging troops and material for the actual coup they were planning.

Yes, insignificant enough to remark "Yats is our guy" (during an intercepted but confirmed-authentic conversation with another US diplomat that Russia subsequently leaked), only for "Yats" (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) to subsequently become the Ukrainian PM. Coincidence, I'm sure...

Quincy Institute is not tied to Russia and condemns the invasion

You're welcome to find a piece of their writing where they unequivocally support Ukraine without ifs, buts, and NATO-didits.

In their own words:

> We categorically condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and support U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s self-defense.

https://quincyinst.org/2022/07/12/quincy-institutes-position...

Also, having nuance and historical context does not mean they are "pro-Russia". We should be celebrating institutions that challenge propaganda narratives with context not hunting down anyone that doesn't fall in line with a narrative that requires you to believe history started last year

> Russian concessions would permit the establishment of a secure, sovereign, Western–aligned Ukrainian state on approximately 80 percent of its pre-2014 territory.

https://quincyinst.org/research/frequently-asked-questions-a...

Saying we categorically condemn is not a position. Saying Russia is entitled to 20% of Ukraine's pre-2022 territory is a position.

ISW is a shill for neoconservatism (just look at their board!) and is funded by US defense contractors. They try to give the appearance of neutrality via technical jargon etc. but are anything but.

Please give me a single example backing up the claim that Quincy Institute is "a thoroughly pro-Russian think tank"

On their page "Quincy Institute’s Position on Russia-Ukraine" they say at the very beginning:

> We categorically condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and support U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s self-defense.

https://quincyinst.org/2022/07/12/quincy-institutes-position...

It has been suggested that QI’s approach is insufficiently critical of Russia.

https://quincyinst.org/2022/07/12/quincy-institutes-position...

Followed by the sentence "A cursory search of our writings and our website shows this to be false."

Would you honestly genuinely describe this as "a thoroughly pro-Russian think tank"? Dishonesty

It is clear that the opinion it's pro-Russian is widespread enough they need to make advance disclaimers. You wanted "a single example backing up the claim", you got one - from the horse's mouth.

you have angered the russian bots, be careful.

You have again failed to meet the characterization of "a thoroughly pro-Russian think tank". If you are unable to find any actual evidence that fits that description then you should just admit as much

I refuse to believe you continue to miss the point explained to you several times. Being intentionally obtuse is not a great look.

All I'm asking for is a single article or published piece that you can characterize as "thoroughly pro-Russia". You routinely fail to provide this

I'm setting the bar really low here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com