The video explicates an example of New York Times propaganda. It does so by comparing an NYT report to a report on the same subject by one of the most prestigious think tanks in the USA.
You can perform the case study on your own, if you’d like, by examining:
Also, Wikipedia has background on CSIS.
I think you’ll find that the video does a credible job.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The first thing I noticed about the CSIS analysis is how many of your claims about this war it debunks. With that said, it seemed a credible overview of the status of Russia’s failed war effort at this point in time.
The CSIS point of view was from 50,000 feet. This particular NYT story was focused on the ground on the real people swept up by Putin’s war policies. I see no actual conflicts in terms of the facts presented. If you see a negative propaganda spin by the NYT, there is a lot of that going around even on Russian TV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The first thing I noticed about the CSIS analysis is how many of your claims about this war it debunks.”
Brave words, but useless if you don’t give any examples.
LikeLike
You know what you have claimed and so do I.
You have denied that Russia is doing badly on the battlefield. This author disagrees.
You have vociferously claimed that Putin still has committed only 20% of his available forces to the fight and has 80% left. This author says . . . “Putin was forced to [conscript civilians] because of battlefield reverses and a shortage of personnel.”
Overall you have claimed that Russia’s military is tough and competent. This author makes it clear how far off your assessment is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see where the CSIS paper refutes any of the observations you claim I have made.
More broadly, Russia has captured and is effectively defending 20% of Ukraine’s territory. That is a military success that cannot be denied.
The CSIS paper concludes with an observation that western media should contemplate: “Russian morale has not been high, but the Russians keep fighting. A thousand years of history indicate that the Russians can continue fighting in conditions other nations might not tolerate.”
LikeLike
“I don’t see where the CSIS paper refutes any of the observations you claim I have made.”
Oh, so you did not claim that Ukraine is losing the war, Russia’s military is unstoppable while Ukraine’s military no longer exists, and that Putin still has 80% of his forces ready to deploy? Well excuuuuse me.
That 20% of Ukrainian territory you say Russia has captured was largely held by Russia BEFORE the invasion – it is mostly Crimea and separatist strongholds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Oh, so you did not claim that Ukraine is losing the war, Russia’s military is unstoppable while Ukraine’s military no longer exists, and that Putin still has 80% of his forces ready to deploy?”
No, not really. I have claimed that Ukraine cannot win, that the military it had when when the war started no longer exists, and that Russia deployed only 20% of its total military in Ukraine. I have never claimed that Ukraine is losing or that Russia’s military is unstoppable or that Ukraine has no military, or that that 80% of Russia’s forces remain to be deployed.
RE: “That 20% of Ukrainian territory you say Russia has captured was largely held by Russia BEFORE the invasion – it is mostly Crimea and separatist strongholds.”
Sure, like Mariupol.
LikeLike
As always, when challenged you do not stand by what you have vociferously argued for before. Each and every thing you now deny saying you HAVE said repeatedly.
I did not say ALL was previously held but citing that 20% figure vastly overstates the now faltering Russian advances since the bulk of that 20% is Crimea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Each and every thing you now deny saying you HAVE said repeatedly.”
Quote my words. I have been consistent.
RE: that 20% figure vastly overstates the now faltering Russian advances since the bulk of that 20% is Crimea.”
Russia has been holding a defensive line for the last 3 weeks, protecting all five of the oblasts it has annexed. Ukraine’s advances are the ones that have been faltering.
LikeLike
“No, not really. ”
Sounds like backtracking a stance to me. But not surprised. This is what you do when challenged. Either backtrack or play a 3d game of semantics.
Call it what you will. I call it, you have been weighed, measured and found wanting. Again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SO using a RUSSIAN propaganda spreading source to prove propaganda by a legitimate news sources is a thing now.
Smell that. It is called DESPERATION. And your posts reek of it daily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tell us how the video is a “RUSSIAN propaganda spreading source.”
LikeLike
The New Atlas is a known pro-Putin source of information. Yet YOU are calling a a study in propaganda, when it IS propaganda itself.
I have called out the source EVERY time you have used it. I have told you how before. If your memory is failing, there are some very nice OTC memory supplements you might want to try.
LikeLiked by 1 person