Imagine being sat at the really long table with Putin, saying how the mission to burn down an IKEA in Lithuania was a great success.
Which is a pretty counterintuitive russian tactic, ~~Bruce~~ like what better option for building long tables would there be than cheap Swedish modular furniture systems?
Yeah, Bruce, what the hell?!
That guy is such a fuck up!
I believe this is covered in chapter three of Vladimir Putin's "How to make friends in the modern world."
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak”
Burning down an IKEA is a pretty desperate move. They also don’t seem to realise that regardless of whether Europe supports Ukraine or not, Ukraine will never surrender. As long as a Ukrainian breaths, there will be resistance to Russia.
Maybe, it also has symbolic value, and might demoralise the civilian populace, whose support is crucial to the continued state support.
It still seems a weak move as infrastructure should be a more effective target, but who knows how many layers of distractions and attacks of opportunity really happen in the field?
Destroying a historic monument or building to demoralise would make more sense. Instead, we have the Russian War on Low Prices.
Nothing of this will work like that though, because Europeans are not tame and obidient in nature. A lot even rebellious. This will get more support for sanctions vs russia, military support for Ukraine and even some outrcries to strike russia directly.
So a British kid got paid by the Russians to burn down a Ukrainian businessmans warehouse? That's pretty dumb, and kinda scary. Is this going to be the start of freelance darkweb mercenaries paid by belligerent states to sabotage their home country? I hope not because the added security they'd bring in to try and stop it would make life much harder for all of us.
New weapon? Already forgot the arson at Czech (I think) munition depot a couple of years back?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Security services around Europe are on alert to a potential new weapon of Russia’s war – arson and sabotage – after a spate of mystery fires and attacks on infrastructure in the Baltics, Germany and the UK.
Investigators have already alleged potential Russian involvement in an arson attack in east London, an inferno that destroyed the largest shopping mall in Poland, a sabotage attempt in Bavaria in Germany and antisemitic graffiti in Paris.
They point out that after the cold war, foreign intelligence operations consisted of spies and their handlers, but in the era of social media, vandals can be hired, leaving few connections to other attackers as pay-as-you-go saboteurs paid a few hundred euros or in cryptocurrency.
Such is the emerging concern that these hybrid attacks could be the work of Russia that the issue was raised at a summit of foreign and defence ministers in Brussels this week with Dutch, Estonian and Lithuanian security officials all warning of national vulnerabilities.
A spokesperson for Ikea said investigations were continuing into the source of the fire in Lithuania but it was among the examples, along with an attempted arson attack on a paint factory in Poland, that Tusk cited in his warning of potential foreign interference.
In April, a British man was accused of orchestrating an arson attack on two units linked to a Ukrainian businessman in an industrial estate in Leyton, east London, after allegedly being recruited by Russian intelligence.
The original article contains 970 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The Guardian – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: Medium Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Left / Reliable
Article By: Lisa O’Carroll
Wow, I definitely didn't expect that "Factual Reporting" would be "Mixed", however going through the list, it shows several instances where they misunderstood either a scientific paper or misrepresented some fact.
That said, I had before in some cases seen articles about AI being either false, misunderstanding the facts, or just parroting some CEO. I attributed it to AI being something relatively "new" to mainstream media, but this is pretty much eye opening.
I like their "long read" articles though, but I guess it's time to find a new main everyday paper for me...
I think this bit sums up the reason for the rating pretty well. Not sure if I completely agree, but it makes sense to me.
The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting.
That makes sense.
Uh, other journalists have called it The Gruniard for years because it has so many mistakes 😂
That name comes from typesetting errors rather than factual mistakes (and is also a holdover from the pre-computer era when spell checking wasnt a thing)
Reuters is the best paper out there, full stop.
The article states that there is no evidence that this is caused by Russia. But then goes on to speculate that it's caused by Russia. Journalistic standards have fallen.
So there is no evidence, just speculation. Nothing to see here then.
It sucks that we live in a world where it's impossible to tell if this is real, complete nonsense, or a false flag operation.
Always was.
Also been suspicious fires throughout the United States. https://wltreport.com/2024/01/31/stunning-map-shows-all-food-processing-plants-that/
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/