The Grayzone is not reliable reporting. It is no different from the Daily Mail or Breitbart, it simply leans in a different direction.
Reader beware.
Check OPs posting history. Pro-China content, Pro-Russia content, ignores every article critical of Russia/China. If this isn’t a troll account, then OP is the very definition of a useful idiot.
I suppose it would be foolish to assume no propagandists are active in this space.
Absolutely. Harvard estimates that China’s 50 Cent troll army makes 488 million comments per year. And that was their estimate from 2016. Always be skeptical of what you’re read, and if you’re suspicious, check the poster’s comment history.
I actually got a temp ban for calling out a massive Russian troll account on Reddit because, “You have to attack the idea, not the user.”
checks my own posting history
Looks fine to me. Oh wait, I’m linking to those well known pro-Russia and pro-China outlets, the Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times. Don’t listen to me, I’ll corrupt your soul with heterodox articles about publicly available government documents.
Wow, this article is totally not inflammatory and so incredibly objective and helpful. Not.
That’s not reporting, and it’s all but serious journalism.
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?
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.
It also repeatedly calls this is a proxy war, which is simply not true based on, ya know, definitions of words.
Here’s a guy who disagrees. But what does he know, he’s just a former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-03-17/u-s-is-in-a-proxy-war-with-russia-panetta-video
Obviously doesn’t know definitions but I’m done engaging with such an obvious propagandist, or maybe you are just a fool.
Proxy war: a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.
Instigate: bring about or initiate (an action or event).
Edit:typo
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.
Where does it say the boats are militarily-equipped?
The boat manufacturer sells “normal” aluminum boats. ++I’m glad I read the piece. Will I read more of the article from this source? Probably not, but as “aid” money going anywhere these days seems to include a huge overspend and some questionable use of funds, I’d rather know about it than dismiss it because of some opinions I can easily ignore.
Edit: ++ doing some digging on “GRAVOIS ALUMINUM BOATS” (who seems to be dba for Metal Shark boats) and they do sell boats with various levels of fitment beyond civilian use. Will update if I find pricing…
Edit2: it looks like a “military” spec 38’ boat can be in the $400k-$600k range. So it would follow that that could easily expand on a government contract. Still am glad to see this reporting, despite some shared misgivings. Thank you for encouraging me to do my own research and not be a lazy consumer of news.
You are sealioning right now. Take your active measures elsewhere.
Had to Google that one. Thanks, but asking why a seemingly good article from a bad source means it’s a bad article isn’t a waste of time. I want to know what’s wrong with this article. This is a place for discussion.
Can you give examples of the article’s problems?
I’m not going to go through it all again, but statements such as
“In the absence of official scrutiny of Washington’s spending spree on Ukraine”
Are just not true. Unless, of course, congressional approval does not count as official scrutiny?
“While innocuous on the surface, Power’s comments revealed a great deception the US government is currently waging against the American public.”
Thise statement is purely inflammatory and riling up everything.
Furthermore, they’re spending multiple paragraphs talking about how much money is being spent and how bad it is without actually saying anything, those are just filler paragraphs intended to further rile up uncritical readers.
And then quite a few of the examples are just stupid and their criticism ignores how those things actually work, and they completely ignore that it is a war and that you cannot publicize everything due to security concerns. Also calling this a proxy war is just LOL.
People trying to post this trash here just because there is limited moderation…
