5 ms·

Any background on this site or the author? They don't seem particularly unbiased to me.

CrazyStat 5y ago
The author is a regular contributor to RT [1] and other Russian government-controlled outlets. [1] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/mikhail-khodarenok/ https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/mikhail-khodarenok/
hau 5y ago
Author's biography listed right at the end of the article.
arnvald 5y ago
Author's background is right below the article: Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok - military observer, retired colonel. Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976), Military Command Academy of Air Defense (1986). Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile battalion (1980–1983). Deputy commander of an anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988). Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992). Officer of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff (1992–2000). Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998). Columnist for the Independent (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier (2010-2015).
- DangerousPie 5y ago
  Right. I was hoping for something a bit more independent. From all I can tell this is just the opinion of a Russian ex military officer posted on a random blog. Not a particularly great source for independent geopolitical analysis.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
  - danielrhodes 5y ago
    Assuming no bias, the author is going to be far more informed than your average news media analyst. The author’s point is more or less that the west does not understand what they are looking at. But if you look at the past few debacles in failed US military interventions, they are all caused by being misinformed. During the Vietnam war, the US was so ill informed on history they thought the Vietnamese would join forces with China. However, Vietnam and China have had a very tumultuous past and this was never on the table - far from it. A quick reading of history would dispel those fears. Amazingly, McNamara only learned of this decades later. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made similar errors. They thought installing a democracy would simply replace the tribal power structures Saddam had kept in check for decades. But obviously with him gone, rivalries came right back. 20 years later… Now that’s not to say Russia is not playing the usual smoke and mirrors games to extract concessions from NATO and West. But it’s good to have this perspective before anybody gets too trigger happy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
omginternets 5y ago
I submit that unbiased journalists don't exist, and further, that what one expects from a journalist is a detailed analysis from an expert's point-of-view; both of these things imply bias. To make matters worse "pure" factual accounts (e.g. AP feed) are biased insofar as they remove fact from context. Of course, it's worth knowing what the journalist's biases are, but I think this apparent quest for pure objectivism is misguided.
- DangerousPie 5y ago
  There are still different degrees to how much a source is biased, and I would argue that "Russian ex-military and RT commentator" is very high on the bias scale. Especially since he is from a place famous for heavy restrictions on speech, state-controlled media and disinformation campaigns.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    We agree. The flip-side of this is that you get an analysis from a former Russian colonel, which is interesting and somewhat rare. In other words: "what is his/her bias?" is a more interesting question than "who is unbiased?".

The author is a regular contributor to RT [1] and other Russian government-controlled outlets. [1] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/mikhail-khodarenok/ https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/mikhail-khodarenok/

hau 5y ago

Author's biography listed right at the end of the article.

arnvald 5y ago

Author's background is right below the article: Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok - military observer, retired colonel. Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976), Military Command Academy of Air Defense (1986). Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile battalion (1980–1983). Deputy commander of an anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988). Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992). Officer of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff (1992–2000). Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998). Columnist for the Independent (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier (2010-2015).

DangerousPie 5y ago
Right. I was hoping for something a bit more independent. From all I can tell this is just the opinion of a Russian ex military officer posted on a random blog. Not a particularly great source for independent geopolitical analysis.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
- danielrhodes 5y ago
  Assuming no bias, the author is going to be far more informed than your average news media analyst. The author’s point is more or less that the west does not understand what they are looking at. But if you look at the past few debacles in failed US military interventions, they are all caused by being misinformed. During the Vietnam war, the US was so ill informed on history they thought the Vietnamese would join forces with China. However, Vietnam and China have had a very tumultuous past and this was never on the table - far from it. A quick reading of history would dispel those fears. Amazingly, McNamara only learned of this decades later. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made similar errors. They thought installing a democracy would simply replace the tribal power structures Saddam had kept in check for decades. But obviously with him gone, rivalries came right back. 20 years later… Now that’s not to say Russia is not playing the usual smoke and mirrors games to extract concessions from NATO and West. But it’s good to have this perspective before anybody gets too trigger happy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

omginternets 5y ago

I submit that unbiased journalists don't exist, and further, that what one expects from a journalist is a detailed analysis from an expert's point-of-view; both of these things imply bias. To make matters worse "pure" factual accounts (e.g. AP feed) are biased insofar as they remove fact from context. Of course, it's worth knowing what the journalist's biases are, but I think this apparent quest for pure objectivism is misguided.

DangerousPie 5y ago
There are still different degrees to how much a source is biased, and I would argue that "Russian ex-military and RT commentator" is very high on the bias scale. Especially since he is from a place famous for heavy restrictions on speech, state-controlled media and disinformation campaigns.
- omginternets 5y ago
  We agree. The flip-side of this is that you get an analysis from a former Russian colonel, which is interesting and somewhat rare. In other words: "what is his/her bias?" is a more interesting question than "who is unbiased?".