• ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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🇵🇸 (He/Him)@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🇵🇸 (He/Him)@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@lemmy.ml
                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
                  7
                  ·
                  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.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I know for a fact you are wrong and I’m right

                    followed by

                    I’m the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes

                    is 🤌

              • 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.