• ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Our Focus: The National Interest is an award-winning online publication focusing on defense issues, national security, military affairs and hardware, foreign policy, and U.S. politics.

      The National Interest was founded in 1985.

      Transparency Statement:

      The National Interest is owned and operated by the Center for the National Interest, founded in 1994 by U.S. President Richard M. Nixon.

      You cant be serious lmao

      Detailed Report

      Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER

      Factual Reporting: HIGH

      Country: USA

      Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

      Media Type: Magazine

      Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic

      MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest/

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. That review is for news articles. If you look at the URL, it very clearly includes “blog”, so this is an opinion piece, which I take with the same amount of consideration as Letters To The Editor.

        2. Richard Nixon? You can’t expect us to trust anything associated with a ratfucker.

        • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uh… yes. It’s an opinion piece. You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece, but I linked mediabias checker to show it’s not just some random blog with no credibility that would just post an “AI Russian propaganda article”

          (Also quiz for the class: who founded the EPA lmao)

          • Ooops@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece

            That would require an actual analyses existing instead of just a strong opinion with no evidence.

            • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Did we read the same article? It’s not super deep analysis (what do you expect from libertarians) but he’s backing up his claims with actual reporting if you follow the hyper links.

              • Ooops@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I follow the links then I get informed that those peace talks actually happenend and that’s it.

                I guess if I say that there is proof that the sun will explode tomorrow and then link an article showinging with pictures that the sun indeed exists, you will believe me, too?

              • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Did you read the title of this article? Brilliantly loaded with two Russian taking points : US being the reason for the war and that Ukraine cannot win and should not even fight. No one that cares about credibility would write that.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think you really appreciate how we live in different worlds now.

                  I know the US provoked this war and I know that Ukraine can’t win, and you know Russia attacked for no reason and that Ukraine is on the cusp of victory, and nothing we can possibly type at each other will ever change that. Reality is dead. Choose your own adventure!

                  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I know for a fact you are wrong and I’m right and it’s so easy to prove it. I’m the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes (and conspiracy theories) . That’s the reality. Talking in absolutes is a dead giveaway. It means a big separation from reality.

                    I don’t think Russia attacked for no reason and I don’t think Ukrainian victory is certain. I think it’s going to be a long and difficult conflict. What I do see is people reporting from the battles. Russian and Ukrainian and others. That’s the reality.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Stoltenberg, the head of NATO said that the US push to expand NATO was the key reason for Russia’s action - https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

                  Ukraine, on its own, cannot win. It is far too small. It can only win with US weapons, but it has far fewer soldiers than Russia. So if the US sends weapons, Ukrainian soldiers will die. The question is in what ratio? The evidence is that Ukraine is losing soldiers faster than Russia. So the weapons sent by the West are guaranteeing Ukrainians die in droves.

                  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, I thought Russia just wanted to protect the Sudeten? That’s what I usually hear :) Nato has nothing to do with it. I don’t know what stoltenberg said and how it was taken out of context, but NATO is an organisation to which countries apply. Nobody is forcing them to join (except the threat of Russian invasion).

                    Ukraine is not that small and Ukraine would fight if it gets the weapons or not,because they are fighting for themselves. Likely less will die when they have something to fight with.

                    The actual evidence shows that Ukraine is losing far less people than Russia. One of the most evident proofs is the oryx report of lost hardware. It had it’s flaws but I think it’s very relevant. The leaked US report about two months ago has Ukraine at about 70k dead and Russia at 120k.

      • NoiseColor@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The article makes exactly the same arguments, russian trolls are making. I don’t know the publication, but this article for sure is not quality content that would bring any value. Its just regurgitation of Russian trolls.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s as if the arguments “Russian trolls” as you call them have been making are the actual reality, while you’ve been guzzling propaganda out of a fire hose. The fact that you still can’t understand that Ukraine lost the war highlights just what an utter imbecile you really are.

          • Mana@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            This has been my perception all along. I don’t really get how anybody thought Ukraine could win. In expressing this opinion, you’re labeled as a Putin puppet. You don’t have to be pro-Russia to say that they are winning.

            I’m hopeful that the war comes to a close soon though.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anybody capable of thinking about the situation objectively understood this from the start. As you say though, most people are unable to have a rational discussion on the subject because they’re emotionally invested in the war.

          • NoiseColor@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, how refreshing to see someone coming out as a deranged putinversteher asshole from the start, without wasting my time.

            Toodles!

            • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I honestly feel like some trekkie should’ve pulled your card already 'cause you’re giving them a very fashy name right now

              • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have no idea what your are taking about, but we trekkies are against violent conquest, against violence itself. However defending ourselves and weaker peoples is a whole other matter. We are on the side of the oppressed and subjugated and are willing to stand up for them. I’m pretty sure they are satisfied with everything I have said.

                You are free to comment on my opinions, please do , but attacking me personally, that doesn’t come out as serious.

                • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What you want is a “debate”, and I’m not giving it to you. I don’t take any settler who fixes their face to say “russian bot” without an iota of irony seriously, to be frank. Not one of you are worth the effort honest discourse takes as it currently stands. If you want the veneer of legitimacy, maybe try being legitimate first.

                  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I have no idea what you just said. I don’t know who settlers are, who “we” are supposed to be and what legitimacy you are looking for.

                    I’ll just take a wild prediction that is better for me not knowing.

                    Have a nice day. Goodbye.

              • palordrolap@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your profile picture (at time of writing) is literally a Russian cosmonaut. Your bias is showing. (Pretty sure your profile banner is from Russian propaganda too, though I’m sure you’ll correct me if that’s untrue.)

                But I suppose that does make you more overt and honest. Not necessarily right, but definitely honest.

                (Unless you’re an anti-Russian double-bluff. I can’t profess to be an expert on the psychology of this sort of thing.)

                  • palordrolap@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Are you somehow closer to the truth, or are you, like the rest of us, getting news from various sources and making your own mind up?

                    Because if so, my ad hominem kind of applies to all of us internet forum idiots and armchair politicians. Those of us without obvious declarations in our profiles could be argued to be the stealth ones, trying to swing people this way and that with who knows what agenda.

                    Why do we reach the conclusions we do anyway? Do we stand to gain anything?

                    At least in your case, it seems more obvious why you do, wearing your colours on your sleeve (metaphorically speaking) as you do.

                    If you would like an inkling of why I think the way I do: I’m never in favour of it when a larger power goes in, guns blazing, to override a smaller one, like there’s literally no other way. And they always, always go too far, refuse to back down, and a huge number of people die senselessly because some ideologue thinks that a lesson needs to be taught. (Curiously, the ideologues themselves tend to be a long, long way from the bullets.)

                    It’s happened in history so many times. My own damn country has been the aggressor. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right when it’s done now.

                    Please note that you literally cannot tell which conflict I’m talking about here. There’s at least three.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your comment 10m after the post hit the new feed is likely an AI USA propaganda comment.