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 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] MangoMakesMeSmile@lemmy.one -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

It's interesting that you just defined both a proxy war and described what's going on in Ukraine by using the same words.

I wonder if that means the fighting in Ukraine is a... proxy war?

Unless you mean to say that because the US and NATO are providing so much support to. Ukraine in terms of weapons, training, propaganda, strategic assistance, and even combatants, that they are indeed involved, thus making this not a proxy war but a war between NATO and Russia?

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are sealioning right now. Take your active measures elsewhere.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 year ago

This is not a place for discussion. This is a place to post articles about why Ukraine will win and why Xi Jinping is evil.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you give examples of the article's problems?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.