2 ms·

I can read and understand the words you are wrote but I cannot discern a purpose behind writing them. Is it just random trivia?

r721 7y ago
Well, I meant this outlet is not impartial, and it is often cited in Russian state media when they write about "strong Russian superweapons": "It is worth pointing out that it is not the first time the National Interest has been a crutch for Russian propaganda outlets. Indeed, the U.S. publication seems to run a story every week about some Russian superweapon that America must fear. The latest came just four days ago, and claimed a developmental weapons system, the S-500, will kill all U.S. fighter jets. Almost all of these stories get regurgitated in the Russian press, and presented to the Russian people as conclusive evidence that Russia is the great military power the Kremlin claims to be." https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russia-wants-you-to-know-its-bombs-are-bigger-a57732 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russi... (2017) This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).
- ailideex 7y ago
  > This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it). That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even. If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.

r721 7y ago

Well, I meant this outlet is not impartial, and it is often cited in Russian state media when they write about "strong Russian superweapons": "It is worth pointing out that it is not the first time the National Interest has been a crutch for Russian propaganda outlets. Indeed, the U.S. publication seems to run a story every week about some Russian superweapon that America must fear. The latest came just four days ago, and claimed a developmental weapons system, the S-500, will kill all U.S. fighter jets. Almost all of these stories get regurgitated in the Russian press, and presented to the Russian people as conclusive evidence that Russia is the great military power the Kremlin claims to be." https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russia-wants-you-to-know-its-bombs-are-bigger-a57732 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russi... (2017) This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).

ailideex 7y ago
> This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it). That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even. If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.