Hacker News Reader

Comment by r721 | Hacker News Reader

>nationalinterest.org

The publisher of The National Interest is Dimitri K. Simes [1], who "went to Moscow and became a moderator of the political program Большая игра ("Big Game") on Channel One Russia, together with Vyacheslav Nikonov"[2].

Also: "While investigating Maria Butina for illegal foreign agent activities, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly explored her ties to Russian-American political expert and Center for the National Interest president Dimitri Simes"[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Interest

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Simes

[3] https://meduza.io/en/news/2019/03/07/in-connection-with-mari...

View on HN

I can read and understand the words you are wrote but I cannot discern a purpose behind writing them. Is it just random trivia?

Well, I meant this outlet is not impartial, and it is often cited in Russian state media when they write about "strong Russian superweapons":

"It is worth pointing out that it is not the first time the National Interest has been a crutch for Russian propaganda outlets. Indeed, the U.S. publication seems to run a story every week about some Russian superweapon that America must fear. The latest came just four days ago, and claimed a developmental weapons system, the S-500, will kill all U.S. fighter jets.

Almost all of these stories get regurgitated in the Russian press, and presented to the Russian people as conclusive evidence that Russia is the great military power the Kremlin claims to be."

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russi... (2017)

This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).

> This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).

That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even.

If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com