There are plenty of balanced and perceptive people in the mainstream. For example, Fukuyama recently argued for Ukraine to let Donbas go, focus on retaking Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, then use NATO membership and their position around Crimea to disincentivize further Russian attacks [1]. (Viscerally I would prefer a sweeping Ukrainian victory retaking all occupied territory, but retaking Donbas and Crimea would be "hugging a hornet's nest" even if it could be done.)
I think predictive success is more down to the person sorting the info than the source. I ignore most of the war of words and focus on the territory changes. Maps are more honest.
I think predictive success is more down to the person sorting the info than the source. I ignore most of the war of words and focus on the territory changes. Maps are more honest.
[1] https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/nato-membership-for...