• s38b35M5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Can you share an example of the lack of journalism in this piece? I agree that the media bias of this formerly-unknown-to-me source is bad, but this piece has many, many reliable sources (USA Spending website, Reuters, NYT, BBC, etc.).

    And isn’t it generally known that profiteering and graft occurs during armed conflict? Why not expose it?

    Edit: for example, spending $US5.5M on six boats, trailers, spare parts and “training” seems high right? How much does a 38’ aluminum boat usually cost? Less than $100k, right? So, was the extra $4.9M for “delivery?” why wouldn’t this information be in the public interest?

    • MangoMakesMeSmile@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a series of figures given without context along with various unfounded opinions mixed in. I can’t take any article seriously when it endorses the stance that Russia is being backed into a corner and faces an existential threat to its survival due to its invasion of Ukraine. It also repeatedly calls this a proxy war, which is simply not true based on, ya know, definitions of words. I also find it disingenuous to say Washington drew Moscow into this “proxy war” when Moscow voluntarily started this invasion against the backdrop of expected world condemnation. If Putin himself didn’t bankroll this piece then he should be retroactively paying the editor and author for the blatant misinformation.

      Edit: Nice edit. You think a militarily equipped 38’ full or center console boat costs less than 100k??? You’re off by a factor of 5-10x.