Axel Springer cares fuck all about anything other than their profits, their power in German politics and being a narrative setter.
By saying „they did a very good job, …“ but after the comma instead of explaining, why you think they did a good job, you start a deflection, you immediately discredit yourself as a supposed good faith actor.
Care to try again, FactChecker?
e: oh, you‘re that kind of account. alright, bring it!
Because it's very likely not real. These are unverifiable, imaginary numbers published by Axel Springer, the worst German journalism has to offer.
In regards to the author, the Bellingcat description says:
He was previously a freelance trainer for Bellingcat.
He is a "a trainer of media professionals specialised in new media, social media and data journalism", "thought leader" and "visiting lector of Axel Springer Akademie in Berlin" according to this profile. He consults, teaches, sells books about his methods, but does not do investigative reporting himself (as it seems).
So, he's legit as in that kind of way, sure is involved in stuff. But not neccessarily in a way that boosts his trustworthiness in regards of the journalistic integrity of the reporting done here.
All the students are from Axel Springer‘s trainee program, the notorious publisher known for its misinformation, slandering and yellow press. Absolutely not known for its investigative journalism, that would be a new one. Heavily biased pro capitalist, pro Ukraine, pro Israel.
The story also was published behind a paywall, around two weeks after the analysis from dronewatch.eu debunking almost all the drone sightings.
Although officials in Denmark, Germany and Belgium have repeatedly suggested Russian involvement, the data tells a different story. Only three cases involved confirmed Russian drones — all in countries bordering Ukraine: Poland, Romania and Moldova.
This means that the often-mentioned link to Russian hybrid warfare in Western Europe is still unsubstantiated. And even if, at some point, drones were observed flying in formation — as the Belgian defence minister has claimed several times — that does not automatically point to a state actor.
I press DOUBT.
To be fair, that's called a coup and it was initiated and supported by the west. Enjoy some in depth reading through the topic page. The BBC (and other mainstream media) sadly is not a trustworthy source for reporting that's critical of western imperialism and its war efforts (compare to highly partisan Anti-Palestine reporting).
To understand the current US-NATO war against Russia over Ukraine, it is critical to review the background and implications of the 2014 far-right coup in Kiev, which overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. The coup was openly supported by US and European imperialism and implemented primarily by far-right shock troops, such as the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.
What a very civil answer of you. Totally not the behaviour of a ridiculously propagandised teenager, that might have had a few too many low quality vodkas themselves in their short and miserable live.
Wikipedia on the Name of Ukriane
We don't necessarily disagree, but proclaiming disregard for Ukrainian souvereignty based on the use of a definitive article in an international forum is bad faith conduct. It's specifically an English thing and a Ukrainian/Russian thing. There are languages that are using the definitve article based on how their languages work and these kind of usages will sometimes transfer into English.
This, again, does not mean what you trying to do, discrediting another user's opinions or arguments based on an improper use of a foreign language. That is the opposite of civil behaviour.
As a german, I had to actively learn to not use "the" in combination with "Ukraine". It happened because of a confrontation with clever individuals like you, but that really can be done politely hinting at the proper use in the English language and not by shaming the other person.
(reup, edited out the meany words, lol, because imagine the uncivility that might be caused in this post)
Oh my, so you first accuse someone of spouting propaganda and insult them at the same time, because you don't like their perspective, all based off of the grammatically wrong use of an article and when you're being confronted with your shitty behaviour you play victim, because said behaviour is ousted as being the opposite of civil and the kind of people acting like that, which includes you, are being called out as the clever individuals that they are.
Bohooo, poor little ignorant victim you are.
How about you accept, that you behaved like an asshole and throw out an excuse - that would be more impressive. But looks like you don't have the character strength.
An alternative would be to actually provide some kind of arguments as to why the accused's arguments or opinions are wrong, instead of straight up denouncing them - that would also be more impressive. But looks like you don't have the intellectual strength.
Get lost, splendid individual.
(edited out some mean words, because of this funny line that is drawn for the very selectively applied civility rule)
This is dumb. It's dependant on the mother tongue how and if a definitive article is being used with Ukraine. In German for example, you say "die Ukraine", and a natural translation into colloquial English results in the use of "the Ukraine". This doesn't mean to be a Sergei.
It's a comparison, not whataboutism. They're comparing similar things, they're not trying to shift the discussion somewhere else.
What‘s your perspective on Trump‘s motion to increase and secure US rule over the Americas?