- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Ideas range from joint offensive cyber operations against Russia, and faster and more coordinated attribution of hybrid attacks by quickly pointing the finger at Moscow, to surprise NATO-led military exercises, according to two senior European government officials and three EU diplomats
“The Russians are constantly testing the limits — what is the response, how far can we go?” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže noted in an interview. A more “proactive response is needed,” she told POLITICO. “And it’s not talking that sends a signal — it’s doing.”
Finally.
No, that’s not happening.
You are listening to lying propagandists here. The only actual question with Axel Springer SE always is are they lying for some of their own hateful agendas, for their fossil fuel promoting co-owners KKR (unlikely in this special case), getting paid again by the US, or just doing it out of their unwavering “solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America” (one of their core principle directly from their website…) because some of their MAGA supporting friends asked them nicely to create a distraction.
(reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE)
This sounds very conspiratorial. What are those agendas you are talking about? You listed just about anyone you can think of to be involved in your conspiracy. Are you a broken clock by any chance, hoping to be right with at least one of those?
How would them lying about this benefit anyone?
Did you even read the article? Real people are quoted there talking about retaliation:
However much truth might be in your comment. This isn’t the case at all.
No, I listed a few of those Axel Springer SE is well documented to have already pushed propaganda for. In fact as I live in Germany I can read their lies in big red letters every morning on that rag displayed everywhere. So I sadly know how bad it really is…
PS:
“[…] claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy. This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA”
" As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names “solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America” as one of its core principles on its website. This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers"
“Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes.”
All quotes from the Wiki link you refused to click to imply conspiracy theories on my side instead.
So who exactly is doing it and to what ends, how exactly does it benefit anyone to lie about this? How come there are real politicians quoted in the article talking about retaliation? Are they also part of the conspiracy?
You clearly haven’t even read the article and are biased with your conspiratorial beliefs.
I get it that you hate Politico, but you should really read the article and learn to think critically for yourself.
You insist on “what is wrong in this article” .
One of the things that popaganda does is sprinkling some real stuff to attract new people and then slowly feed them more lies.
It doesn’t matter if you stumble upon a few good articles with real quotes - the whole thing must be avoided to reduce traffic in their direction. The proper response is to find a different source with the same quotes.
This is thinking critically. If you know it’s from a propagandist, don’t give them more food. Your version of “thinking critically” is just “listen to the people who sound more convincing, even you know they are liars and you can’t find if this specific article has lies or not” .
So what exactly is the propaganda here?
The website.
An object or entity by themselves, regardless if they are physical or electronic cannot be propaganda.
Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about.
“A thing written by people can’t possibly be propaganda” lol okay.
It sounds like you’ve picked an axe to grind rather than talking about the article.
Do you have something relevant to say or just vague nothingness to rant about?
You are actually not wrong. I indeed have an axe to grind with a morally bankrupt shit stain of a media company that not only is a major source of desinformation and right to far-right propaganda for decades but also managed to buy enough formerly reputable publications to pretend that their agenda pushing is actual journalism.
If you think that a media company known to lie and deceive (for a personal agenda, for the agenda of their investor or just directly for money) is not that big of a deal and we still need to take everything they publish at face value in case it is true for once or contains some traces of truth, that is very much your problem.
Maybe you have time for this. The vast majority doesn’t have the time to fact check every single thing they read. And so they should indeed know when a publisher is generally trash, barely does anything without an explicit agenda, and rarely actually reports the truth (and only if it can be framed to fit their agenda).
PS: Calling documented violations of basic journalistic code in a huge amount of different cases(*) "vague nothingness also is a definitive “you”-problem.
(*) For reference: There is a German Press Council reprimanding severe violations in journalistic and ethical standards. Most publications manage to get 1 to a few over many decades of business, the worst examples of yellow press even get low double digits. And then there is just BILD (Axel Springer’s flagship rag in Germany) with ~300 or 30% of all reprimands ever published (more than 30 just in 2024). And their other publication run the exact same narratives, just dressed slightly more professionally looking for other audiences.
“Overall, Europe and the alliance must ask themselves how long we are willing to tolerate this type of hybrid warfare … [and] whether we should consider becoming more active ourselves in this area,” German State Secretary for Defense Florian Hahn told Welt TV last week.
Hybrid attacks are nothing new. Russia has in recent years sent assassins to murder political enemies in the U.K., been accused of blowing up arms storage facilities in Central Europe, attempted to destabilize the EU by financing far-right political parties, engaged in social media warfare, and tried to upend elections in countries like Romania and Moldova.
“Today’s world offers a much more open — indeed, one might say creative — space for foreign policy,” Russian leader Vladimir Putin said during October’s Valdai conference, adding: “We are closely monitoring the growing militarization of Europe. Is it just rhetoric, or is it time for us to respond?”