I criticized the opening blurb which added nothing to the article beyond being anti-American. I guess your reading comprehension failed you, because I already stated why I used the CNN article. It's near identical to the article it predates, which raises some questions.
Center by some standards, sure, but certainly not right leaning. Maybe your political stance is more fucked, hence your confusion? We can just add that to your lack of reading comprehension.
I guess it depends on who you talk to, but plenty of Americans and Westerners are aware of this shit. As for a "firewall", there is nothing blocking us from crap like Voice of America. So there really is no buffer, unlike other countries such as China or Russia, attempting to keep us unaware. The government just doesn't mention it.
If you're getting your news from social media, you're an idiot, regardless of who's propaganda you choose to consume. Just look at Trump supporters.
Pro-American spin? Lol... There is nothing about America mentioned in the article, so I guess you didn't actually read it. It provided essentially the same exact article, days earlier, and didn't include the unnecessary American blurb in the OP posted article.
Cool, thanks for offering even more sources. I specifically chose the CNN article because of the identical headline and near identical content, which this random outlet likely copied from. CNN is left leaning btw. The only way it is right wing is if you skew harder to the left, so I guess we already know where you stand.
Al Jazeera is no more neutral than CNN. You just get the Qatari government perspective rather than Liberal/Democrat Americans. Reuters and DW are definitely more neutral.
The fact CSTO has a defense clause which Russia has failed to follow through on multiple times? You talk economic growth, cherry picking stats you like, when I'm talking about the core foundation of a defense pact. The defense. Not once has the group actually defended a member state during an armed conflict, specifically the ongoing fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It is a toothless pact. I'll let Lord handle your stat nonsense, since that wasn't the point of me mentioning CSTO.
You're almost right. The match was the attempt to take the Russian deal and, knowing full well what that meant, people took to the streets.
That $15 billion would be an investment in a puppet state at Putin's beck and call. Belarus is all the evidence you need, but you can also see how well the CSTO is going for Armenia. Utterly worthless deals.
None of which align with each other, hence my continued statement of reading from many sources, of varied bias and neutrality. At least I know who is running the show in these places, unlike the unknown outlets you dredge up from the backwaters of the Internet.
You seem to have a serious comprehension problem. Best of luck on your continued education.
Well established? Then why is it relatively unknown? It's barely searchable on any media bias metric, which is a bad start for it's overall out reach and popularity.
USA Today? Please. I'm talking about worldwide outlets of varying neutrality and bias. Reuters, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, and AP to name a few.
Check those out if you get tired of the echo chambers I'd expect to find in social media ads and poorly worded tweets. You're one step up from YouTube Shorts "news".
Didn't realize the US and EU are to blame for Russia invading its neighbor unprovoked. Could have sworn it was Russia trying to wrap up what they started in the "Free Republics" and Crimea.
I criticized the opening blurb which added nothing to the article beyond being anti-American. I guess your reading comprehension failed you, because I already stated why I used the CNN article. It's near identical to the article it predates, which raises some questions.
Center by some standards, sure, but certainly not right leaning. Maybe your political stance is more fucked, hence your confusion? We can just add that to your lack of reading comprehension.