I remember his protracted war posts, and ... indeed there's still a war going there, and fortunately it did not even get into the anticipated guerilla phase.

Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)

▲

hackandthink 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I checked the blog, You have a point. Brett Devereux was more cautious.

"If you are trying to follow the War in Ukraine, I strongly suggest watching the War on the Rocks podcasts for the times they bring in Michael Kofman."

I’ve been caught up in “guilt by association” here. Michael Kofman always struck me as a cheap propagandist. (but I should shut up now)

	▲	gherkinnn 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Paying WoR subscriber here. Kofman likes to talk a lot and can't interview others because of it. He is also clearly pro-Ukraine. But I never saw him as a cheap propagandist. Not even an expensive one. Despite his obvious allegiance, he regularly criticised UAs actions and never went for any of the hurrah-hurr-durr delusions you had anywhere else. During the siege of Bachmut he repeatedly and clearly said that UA has nothing to gain from holding out. I remember him openly critical of the sacking of the defence minister, candidly describing the problems in UAs recruitment, never hyped up drones, avoided predictions and after that first fiasco with Trump and Vance last year he did not hold back criticism towards Zelensky and not once can I remember him painting the Russians as morons. On the contrary, in one episode he dismisses any sort of essentialism and related chauvinism, this was when refuting the idea that broad parallels can be seen between Napoleonic and today's Russia.