The article is so heavily handed in its one-sided condemnation of adversary nations, and the author refuses to look at the disinformation activities of his fath

The article is so heavily handed in its one-sided condemnation of adversary nations, and the author refuses to look at the disinformation activities of his fatherland (besides saying it isn't doing enough and needs to "up its game"). Being candid about the abuse of information on all sides is a REQUIRED first step to discussing Information Warfare in a sensible way. Not doing it immediately introduces cherrypicking, and gives the impression to readership that there is one-sided activity that requires a one-sided response. This itself is disinformation. I'm not sure we could expect anything else from a career propagandist (Peter Pomerantsev, the author) and think trying to start conceptualizing the propaganda war by reading in some serious way such particularly strategized output from a propagandist is a poor manner to start.