4 ms·
> The study suffered from bias. This slant was clear when the report misleadingly referred to the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine facilely as “Putin’s war” and
by mattnewton 4y ago
> The study suffered from bias. This slant was clear when the report misleadingly referred to the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine facilely as “Putin’s war” and “Russian aggression”, as if the West did not play a fundamental role in starting the conflict in the first place by sponsoring a violent coup d’etat in Kiev in 2014, repeatedly violating promises not to expand NATO east after the 1990 reunification of Germany, sabotaging the Minsk accords and peace talks, and ignoring Moscow’s 2021 request for security guarantees.
Why is this nonsense being upvoted here?
- tguvot 4y agothis is hilarious. totally not biased https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/contributors/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/contributors/ .
- drivebycomment 4y agoIndeed, that web site is very clearly a propaganda website, full of bullshit. Shame on the submitter.
- strken 4y agoWhile the article itself is absolute junk, it's interesting to follow the trail of pro-Russia propaganda. The author is Ben Norton, formerly of The Grayzone, which is apparently a well-known Kremlin mouthpiece. I'd never heard of either publication, and they're both fascinating windows into propaganda that's designed to lure in the left instead of the right.